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.

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.

^^^

THIS

Yes, Westmoreland was simply putting that phrase in context for me as I wasn't sure I understood what it meant.

I did that search too, zombs

I am sure HQ did too

Sometimes yes. But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer.

Thank you for answering. I've got to say, I profoundly disgree with that though. Sometimes, people are too ill. There would be no point in, for example, distressing a psychotic patient with a visit from strangers speaking words the patient could not understand or might find frightening just to be able to say 'Oh, well, we did offer Holly the chance to speak in court.'

Sometimes, people are too disabled. Take cases in the Court of Protection for patients in a persistent vegetative state. No prospect of their participation, obviously (so obvious it seems odd even typing that out) and going through the motions of asking them would be no more than a bizarre and unedifying ritual.

But I fear I am taking this odd thread too seriously.

Wot!!

Deleted threads, you mean ?

< sharp intake of breath >

No, you misunderstand me Maryz. I know the history v well (top lurker). I meant I was bothering to post straight, as though this were a heartfelt search for insight by the OP, rather than just saying 'Yah bollocks' which would probably be better.

Spero: Yes Holly. Let's get back to human rights.

Shall we try again, fresh start?

A House of Lords inquiry (sic) about human rights in court
is being told that "People ... are being denied justice ..."

Emily Dugan, Social Affairs Correspondent, published Friday 03 January 2014
Brief, fair use, excerpt:

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

People with ... 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 ...

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I submit that denial of justice and human rights is taking place in England, is improper, and should be remedied by parliament pursuant to the subject House of Lords activity.

Please can we agree on that?

Angela It is the law though that they have to be notified. The IMCA should not be a stranger.
In my experience of the court of protection, people who are subject to proceedings have been allocated an IMCA (Independent Mental Capacity Advocate) who has instructed Solicitors on their behalf.

Once proceedings are issued in the COP, the person is notified. Or at least an attempt to notify is made. In person, not by post, and we have to tell the court that this has been done.
Also we have to notify other people with an interest in the case, this could be the care home and immediate family members.

No, OP, we can't. One lawyer's view, in submissions to an inquiry, as paraphrased by a journalist, was that depriving patients of the right to speak 'can [not always does] lead to injustice'.

This is not evidence, let alone proof, that denial of justice and human rights is taking place in this country.

Tell me how Alessandra Pacchieri was denied justice.

You say the law in THIS case was remarkable.

you say you know a lot about European law. So tell me which European law was broken.

Don't tell me that some lawyers are worried the system isn't working as well as it should be.

Tell me what law has been broken.

Ok thanks, scalesagain, that's interesting.

"Please can we agree on that?"

No, because of all the reasons already given.

There is such a thing as too ill, but that does not mean that the imca stops visiting and trying to involve the patient as much as possible.

Heh heh.

scales So is this a compulsory thing, and is it likely that they did actually try to talk to her?

ah crap - I was just interested in the use of the phrase ad hominem I wasn't speculating that Holly might be John Hemming or anything honest MNHQ

Its just such a peculiar phrase that i've only come across recently on these kind of threads thats all. I wondered if it was a 'thing'. It stood out to me.

Please don't ban me

I'm beginning to wonder if you have more understanding than we are crediting you with as to what it means to be delusional

IMCA is compulsory under the mental capacity act if someone has no one else to speak on their behalf e.g family or friends. It is unusual for someone not to be 'befriended' in some shape or form in relation to mental capacity/ best interests decisions.

Not to be confused with the Nearest Relative provisions under the mental health act.