《1983年精神卫生法》第117条规定的提供事后护理的义务。

B. Andoh
{"title":"《1983年精神卫生法》第117条规定的提供事后护理的义务。","authors":"B. Andoh","doi":"10.1177/00258172221086103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In December 2021 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) published its ruling in Worcestershire County Council, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWCA Civ 1957, a case about a dispute between two local authorities regarding which of them should bear the duty to provide after-care for a patient (service user) following her discharge from her second detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The primary issue in the case was where she was ordinarily resident at the time of her second detention under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This paper reviews the case, surveys the evolution of the duty to provide after-care and comments on specific aspects of the Court of Appeal's decision.","PeriodicalId":415754,"journal":{"name":"The Medico-legal journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The duty to provide after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 again.\",\"authors\":\"B. Andoh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00258172221086103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In December 2021 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) published its ruling in Worcestershire County Council, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWCA Civ 1957, a case about a dispute between two local authorities regarding which of them should bear the duty to provide after-care for a patient (service user) following her discharge from her second detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The primary issue in the case was where she was ordinarily resident at the time of her second detention under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This paper reviews the case, surveys the evolution of the duty to provide after-care and comments on specific aspects of the Court of Appeal's decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":415754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Medico-legal journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Medico-legal journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00258172221086103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Medico-legal journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00258172221086103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2021年12月,上诉法院(民事庭)在伍斯特郡议会R(关于适用)诉卫生和社会保健国务秘书[2021]1957年EWCA民事案件中公布了其裁决,该案涉及两个地方当局之间的纠纷,涉及根据1983年《精神健康法》第3条,在病人(服务使用者)第二次被拘留出院后,哪一方应承担为病人(服务使用者)提供后护理的责任。本案的主要问题是,根据1983年《精神卫生法》第3条第二次拘留时,她通常居住在哪里。本文回顾了该案件,调查了提供善后照顾义务的演变,并对上诉法院判决的具体方面提出了评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The duty to provide after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 again.
In December 2021 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) published its ruling in Worcestershire County Council, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWCA Civ 1957, a case about a dispute between two local authorities regarding which of them should bear the duty to provide after-care for a patient (service user) following her discharge from her second detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The primary issue in the case was where she was ordinarily resident at the time of her second detention under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This paper reviews the case, surveys the evolution of the duty to provide after-care and comments on specific aspects of the Court of Appeal's decision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Samaritan doctors - should interventions be limited to dealing with emergency situations? Diagnostic errors in rheumatology and medico-legal consequences. Simulation-based training in cardiology/The role of simulation and AI in education. Animal attack, concocted for monetary benefits: A case report. Ethical considerations in dermatology - musings from the city to surf.
×
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