Mental health patients being denied human rights in court

[HollyHB]

From www.independent.co.uk/
Emily Dugan, Social Affairs Correspondent, published Friday 03 January 2014

Brief, fair use excerpt:

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

People with mental health problems are being denied justice by some Court of Protection judges who fail to even consider hearing patients’ testimony, leading lawyers have told a House of Lords inquiry. ... Charlotte Haworth Hird, a solicitor who contributed to the submission, said that depriving patients of the right to speak for themselves “can lead to injustice”. She added: “Just because someone is deemed not to have capacity doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the chance to speak to the judge about an important decision affecting their lives. ... The decisions of the court came under scrutiny earlier ... when it emerged Italian mother Alessandra Pacchieri had a caesarean section performed against her wishes and that her daughter was later taken into "care". ...

• - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's good that they acknowledge that when people are denied opportunity to speak in their own defense when accused of being mental in an English Star Chamber secret court, it is not just the victim but her child or children who are denied justice also.

If you'd read what you'd quoted from LittleDoris you'd know why you were being "singled out"

I agree I don't know much about any kind of illness

It is felicitous that we do share some common ground op.

(see Maryz? This is easy!)

But apology accepted and for the record the phrase "mentally ill" is fine to be used.

singled out?

nope, just you.

HollyHB why did you start such an opinionated thread then on something you now admit you know very little about?

Spero wrote: Why do you blame the 'process' as 'secret and deceitful' when she was seriously mentally ill?

How is her being seriously mentally ill in anyway relevant to the issue that she was denied due process to which she is entitled as a matter of human rights? Stop with these red herrings, that is not what the House of Lords enquiry is all about.

Why don't you get it that the problem is not that she was incapable of putting her case? The problem is that she was prevented from presenting her case.

I can't solve these problems, I am not a judge, lawmaker or a physician

Says Holly, wisely. And yet she starts such a thread, based on such firm opinions!

"How is her being seriously mentally ill in anyway relevant to the issue that she was denied due process to which she is entitled as a matter of human rights?"

Please at least attempt to read what people are telling you. Just for once.

Again Holly

For someone who at 22:31 admitted they know very little about mental health you again seem to have some very strong opinions and in-depth knowledge of the case...

So we've established you're not a doctor, perhaps you are a lawyer?

As you are so sure that you know the facts of this case, and they don't match the actual facts?

If she was capable of putting her case, she wouldn't have been found to have lacked capacity.

She was severely mentally ill. She lacked capacity to understand legal proceedings. She was therefore represented by the Official Solicitor who instructed - at massive cost to the tax payer - a QC to represent her in court.

Which bit of this are you having trouble 'not getting' ?

WestmorlandSausage wrote: HollyHB why did you start such an opinionated thread then on something you now admit you know very little about?

I know next to nothing about medicine. I know quite a fair bit about European human rights. Which is what the reported HoL enquiry is about.

What is remarkable about the Pacchieri case is the law. The medicine in the Pacchieri case is (as far as I know, but I don't really know) quite ordinary.

So tell us all please, in lingering detail, what part of European Law has been breached.

Inform us please, leaving nothing out, as to why her crack legal team of Italian and Brummie lawyers have as yet been unable to draft her grounds of appeal.

Why don't you get it that the problem is not that she was incapable of putting her case? The problem is that she was prevented from presenting her case.

Are you saying she was capable of putting her case? What is your evidence for that? And please don't cite the Italian lawyer who did not see her at the time, and who claimed that the baby was delivered four weeks early - even she doesn't suggest that that is true.

And I ask again, what is your evidence for the assertion that her lawyers did not see her?

Alright, look, you do acceptt that mental illness is an illness like any other right? In that it's real and has real effects? So now we'll substitute it with a physical disability in an analogy.

Imagine you have someone who is mute, they literally cannot speak for themselves. Would you put them in court and expect them to speak? Of course you wouldn't, because they are incapable of doing so and not only would it be pointless it'd be cruel and would disadvantage them. In their case you'd probably allow them to "speak" through another, you'd work around their disability. It wouldn't be denying them their human rights just because they couldn't do the same thing a non-mute person could do.

In the same way, if someone is so mentally unwell/disabled that they cannot communicate, possibly cannot understand, and possibly will be harmed by going through the court process you are not denying their human rights by putting their health needs first. It would only be denying them if you denied them representation, and she wasn't, she had a representative in court, speaking for her.

AP's interests were protected by having lawyers to represent her in court. If they did not speak to her or put her 'views', then as I understand it, it was because AP was not well enough to see them or express a view. Do you disagree that this was the case?

Do you agree that sometimes (though not often) people are too mentally ill to meet lawyers, have any meaningful consultations, or even express a coherent view about what should happen?

Of course, often they are well enough to do those things, and should get the chance. I'm not sure AP's case demonstrates that people are routinely being denied the opportunity, which seems to be the premiss of your OP (but apologies if I've got that wrong).

You see Holly, a certain Mr John Hemming Esq has already taken this issue of the Official Solicitor representing those who lack capacity all the way to the European Court and he lost.

So I would be really interested to know which European Laws have been so grossly violated in this case.

Maryz wrote: I don't suppose, Holly, you would like to give us a list of the Mumsnet names you have used in the past and whether or not you have been banned under those names, would you?

Please address the issue, not the person and enough with the ad hominem attacks, OK?

For your information, not that your low swipe deserves the dignity of a response but for the benefit of your audience: - I have only ever had one mumsnet account, and this is it.

What is remarkable about the Pacchieri case is the law.

WHAT is so remarkable? Seriously, I would like to know what your take on this is.

Mmm. that phrase 'ad hominem attacks' has a very familiar ring to it.

So Holly, now you are back, presumably from adding more 5 star reviews on Amazon, could you tell me what is so remarkable about the way in which the law was applied in this case?

I can wait Holly. I've been waiting nearly four years now.

johnhemming Fri 04-Dec-09 08:38:56

It is interesting how many practitioenrs here when presented with an argument use ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the argument itself.
-----------
johnhemming Thu 05-Dec-13 18:23:35
Here is someone else's response to Carl Gardner's ad hominem attacks on me
theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-culture-of-social-work-and.html
-------------
johnhemming Sat 14-Dec-13 21:39:02
There is a form of debate which is to be personally critical of someone whose view you disagree with (ie playing the ball rather than the man). I am criticial of the malpractise in the family division of the UK courts. However, apart from denying self evidence truths and making false allegations the main approach of the apologists for the system is to be personally critical (the ad hominem attack).

--------------
johnhemming Sat 14-Dec-13 22:06:36
Yes, but using ad hominem attacks is a sign of a weakness in your underlying argument. In fact it does not appear that you have an underlying argument.

-------------
johnhemming Sun 15-Dec-13 08:50:11

This is a reasonably good definition of ad hominem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
--------------
HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:58:41
Maryz wrote: I don't suppose, Holly, you would like to give us a list of the Mumsnet names you have used in the past and whether or not you have been banned under those names, would you?

Please address the issue, not the person and enough with the ad hominem attacks, OK?

For your information, not that your low swipe deserves the dignity of a response but for the benefit of your audience: - I have only ever had one mumsnet account, and this is it.
-----------------

Spero writes: You see Holly, a certain Mr John Hemming Esq has already taken this issue of the Official Solicitor representing those who lack capacity all the way to the European Court and he lost. So I would be really interested to know which European Laws have been so grossly violated in this case

Well, we shall see. Time will tell. The House of Lords enquiry seems to take a view that human rights of persons with severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder have not been honoured at law.

As to the gratuitous swipe at Hemming, I fail to see any relevance to the issue at hand.

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem

Where have I heard that before..?