HM v Switzerland 39187/98 (2002) ECHR 157: Difference between revisions
(New page: ''HM had capacity to object but was undecided; the clinic were entitled to infer consent from the lack of objection.'' ... ==External links== [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''HM had capacity to object but was undecided; the clinic were entitled to infer consent from the lack of objection.'' ... | ''HM had capacity to object but was undecided; the clinic were entitled to infer consent from the lack of objection.'' ... | ||
HM was admitted to a nursing home because of neglect. He cited neglect was not a ground for deprivation of liberty because the Convention only cites vagrancy as grounds in Article 5 (1) | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 07:33, 13 April 2008
HM had capacity to object but was undecided; the clinic were entitled to infer consent from the lack of objection. ... HM was admitted to a nursing home because of neglect. He cited neglect was not a ground for deprivation of liberty because the Convention only cites vagrancy as grounds in Article 5 (1)
External links