Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Does RC cover out of hours have to be provided by someone AC-approved? | News

PBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564: Difference between revisions

(Created page with "{{Case |NCN=[2018] VSC 564 |Date=2018/11/01 |Sentence=Australian case on capacity and ECT |Subject=Medical treatment cases |Court=Supreme Court of Victoria |Judges=Bell J (Aus...")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Case
{{Case
|Date=2018/11/01
|NCN=[2018] VSC 564
|NCN=[2018] VSC 564
|Date=2018/11/01
|Sentence=Australian case on capacity and ECT
|Subject=Medical treatment cases
|Court=Supreme Court of Victoria
|Court=Supreme Court of Victoria
|Judges=Bell J (Australia)
|Judges=Bell J (Australia)
|Parties=PBU, NJE, Mental Health Tribunal (Victoria), Melbourne Health, Bendigo Health
|Parties=PBU, NJE, Mental Health Tribunal (Victoria), Melbourne Health, Bendigo Health
|Sentence=Australian case on capacity and ECT
|Summary=Headnotes from judgment: (1) "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal – decisions of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) that two persons with mental illness be compulsorily subjected to electroconvulsive treatment (‘ECT’) – determination that they lacked the capacity to give informed consent to or refuse treatment – whether VCAT properly interpreted and applied requirement that person be able to ‘use or weigh’ information relevant to decision – further requirement that there be no less restrictive way for the person to be treated – whether this requirement only met where treatment immediately needed to prevent serious deterioration in person’s health or serious self-harm or harm to another – ‘capacity to give informed consent’ – Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) ss 68, 69, 70, 72, 93 and 96." (2) "HUMAN RIGHTS – two persons having mental disability found by VCAT to lack capacity to give informed consent to or refuse ECT – whether incompatible with human rights to self-determination, to be free of non-consensual medical treatment and to personal inviolability – assessing capacity compatibly with those rights and the right to health – applicable principles – dignity of risk – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 8(3), 10(c), 13(a), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art 12(1), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts 12(4), 24."
|Summary=Headnotes from judgment: (1) "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal – decisions of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) that two persons with mental illness be compulsorily subjected to electroconvulsive treatment (‘ECT’) – determination that they lacked the capacity to give informed consent to or refuse treatment – whether VCAT properly interpreted and applied requirement that person be able to ‘use or weigh’ information relevant to decision – further requirement that there be no less restrictive way for the person to be treated – whether this requirement only met where treatment immediately needed to prevent serious deterioration in person’s health or serious self-harm or harm to another – ‘capacity to give informed consent’ – Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) ss 68, 69, 70, 72, 93 and 96." (2) "HUMAN RIGHTS – two persons having mental disability found by VCAT to lack capacity to give informed consent to or refuse ECT – whether incompatible with human rights to self-determination, to be free of non-consensual medical treatment and to personal inviolability – assessing capacity compatibly with those rights and the right to health – applicable principles – dignity of risk – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 8(3), 10(c), 13(a), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art 12(1), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts 12(4), 24."
|Detail===Note==
|Detail===Note==
Date of judgment: 1 November 2018 (revised 22 January 2019)
Date of judgment: 1 November 2018 (revised 22 January 2019)
|External links=*[http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2018/564.html AustLII] - full judgment
|External links=*[http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2018/564.html AustLII] - full judgment
|Subject=Medical treatment cases
|News=Yes
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2019/02/04 02:46:26 PM
|RSS pubdate=2019/02/04 02:46:26 PM
}}
}}
[[Category:Judgment available on MHLO]] <!-- So that can keep track of which are missing -->

Latest revision as of 20:05, 28 May 2020

Australian case on capacity and ECT Headnotes from judgment: (1) "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal – decisions of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) that two persons with mental illness be compulsorily subjected to electroconvulsive treatment (‘ECT’) – determination that they lacked the capacity to give informed consent to or refuse treatment – whether VCAT properly interpreted and applied requirement that person be able to ‘use or weigh’ information relevant to decision – further requirement that there be no less restrictive way for the person to be treated – whether this requirement only met where treatment immediately needed to prevent serious deterioration in person’s health or serious self-harm or harm to another – ‘capacity to give informed consent’ – Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) ss 68, 69, 70, 72, 93 and 96." (2) "HUMAN RIGHTS – two persons having mental disability found by VCAT to lack capacity to give informed consent to or refuse ECT – whether incompatible with human rights to self-determination, to be free of non-consensual medical treatment and to personal inviolability – assessing capacity compatibly with those rights and the right to health – applicable principles – dignity of risk – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 8(3), 10(c), 13(a), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art 12(1), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts 12(4), 24."

Note

Date of judgment: 1 November 2018 (revised 22 January 2019)

Essex search

This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:

External links

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)

Subject(s):

  • Medical treatment cases🔍

Date: 1/11/18🔍

Court: Supreme Court of Victoria🔍

Judge(s):

  • Bell J (Australia)🔍

Parties:

Citation number(s):

  • [2018] VSC 564

What links here:
  • No pages link to this page

Published: 4/2/19 14:50

Cached: 2025-04-09 08:33:29

Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=PBU_v_Mental_Health_Tribunal_(2018)_VSC_564&oldid=42569"