Holly.gif

Information for "PBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564"

Basic information

Display titlePBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564
Default sort keyPBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564
Page length (in bytes)2,081
Page ID9984
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page0

Page protection

EditAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
MoveAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation14:50, 4 February 2019
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit20:05, 28 May 2020
Total number of edits2
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (3)

This page is a member of 3 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (10)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
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."
Information from Extension:WikiSEO