The Abolition of 'Discharge By Operation of Law' - patients detained under sections 3 and 37, Mental Health Act 1983.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q1 LAW Medicine, Science and the Law Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI:10.1177/00258024241275901
Benjamin Andoh
{"title":"The Abolition of 'Discharge By Operation of Law' - patients detained under sections 3 and 37, Mental Health Act 1983.","authors":"Benjamin Andoh","doi":"10.1177/00258024241275901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ever since patients started to be admitted into mental institutions, absconding from such institutions has been a fact of life. Also, clear statutory authority to retake absconders has existed since county asylums, the forerunners of today's mental hospitals, started to be built following the County Asylums Act 1808. At present section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 concerns patients detained under a hospital order without restrictions on their discharge, etc. Section 3 of the Act, on the other hand, governs patients who are non-offenders but who are compulsorily detained in hospital for treatment. In the past, where a detained patient absconded from hospital and stayed at large beyond the period during which he could be retaken, he was deemed automatically discharged (i.e. 'discharged by operation of law'). Regarding sections 3 and 37 patients, such discharge was effectively abolished by the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995. Not much attention has been given to this topic in the literature. This article adopts a solely legal perspective. It looks briefly at when the power to retake absconders from mental hospitals may be exercised and then examines the concept of discharge by operation of law and its abolition. It concludes that the abolition of discharge by operation of law in the case of patients detained under sections 3 and 37, Mental Health Act 1983 was, though long-overdue, sensible and must be applauded.</p>","PeriodicalId":18484,"journal":{"name":"Medicine, Science and the Law","volume":" ","pages":"258024241275901"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine, Science and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00258024241275901","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ever since patients started to be admitted into mental institutions, absconding from such institutions has been a fact of life. Also, clear statutory authority to retake absconders has existed since county asylums, the forerunners of today's mental hospitals, started to be built following the County Asylums Act 1808. At present section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 concerns patients detained under a hospital order without restrictions on their discharge, etc. Section 3 of the Act, on the other hand, governs patients who are non-offenders but who are compulsorily detained in hospital for treatment. In the past, where a detained patient absconded from hospital and stayed at large beyond the period during which he could be retaken, he was deemed automatically discharged (i.e. 'discharged by operation of law'). Regarding sections 3 and 37 patients, such discharge was effectively abolished by the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995. Not much attention has been given to this topic in the literature. This article adopts a solely legal perspective. It looks briefly at when the power to retake absconders from mental hospitals may be exercised and then examines the concept of discharge by operation of law and its abolition. It concludes that the abolition of discharge by operation of law in the case of patients detained under sections 3 and 37, Mental Health Act 1983 was, though long-overdue, sensible and must be applauded.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
废除 "依法出院"--根据《1983 年精神健康法》第 3 条和第 37 条被拘留的病人。
自从精神病院开始收治病人以来,从精神病院潜逃的现象就一直存在。另外,自 1808 年《郡立精神病院法》颁布后开始建立郡立精神病院(即今天精神病院的前身)以来,就一直存在着收回潜逃者的明确法定权力。目前,1983 年《精神健康法》第 37 条涉及根据医院命令被拘留的病人,但不限制其出院等。另一方面,该法第 3 条规定的是非罪犯但被强制住院治疗的病人。过去,如果被拘留的病人从医院潜逃,并在超过可被重新收监的期限后仍逍遥法外,则被视为自动出院(即 "依法出院")。对于第 3 条和第 37 条规定的病人,1995 年的《精神健康(社区病人)法》实际上废除了这种出院规定。文献中对这一主题的关注并不多。本文仅从法律角度出发。文章简要介绍了何时可以行使从精神病院收回潜逃者的权力,然后探讨了依法出院的概念及其废除。文章的结论是,对于根据 1983 年《精神健康法》第 3 条和第 37 条被拘留的病人而言,废除通过法律的实施而出院的做法虽然早该废除,但却是明智之举,必须予以赞扬。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medicine, Science and the Law
Medicine, Science and the Law 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
53
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medicine, Science and the Law is the official journal of the British Academy for Forensic Sciences (BAFS). It is a peer reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the knowledge of forensic science and medicine. The journal aims to inform its readers from a broad perspective and demonstrate the interrelated nature and scope of the forensic disciplines. Through a variety of authoritative research articles submitted from across the globe, it covers a range of topical medico-legal issues. The journal keeps its readers informed of developments and trends through reporting, discussing and debating current issues of importance in forensic practice.
期刊最新文献
Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) within prisons and the criminal justice system. A case of Sudden Cardiac Death with myocardial infarction due to iatrogenic coronary dissection in a patient with coronary vasospasm. Correction of a statistical error: The data does not show Letby's presence at the baby deaths could have occurred by chance. Parricide and homicide NGRI offenders: How do they differ? Features of fatal pesticide ingestion in South Australia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1