Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:36:04.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rescinding responsibilities as nearest relative and displacing the nearest relative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Fiona Cooke
Affiliation:
William Osier House, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 6DU;
Julia Watkins
Affiliation:
William Osier House, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 6DU;
Clive Adams*
Affiliation:
University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX
*
Correspondence
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A case report is presented which highlights two important, but rarely evoked, aspects of mental health law. In this case, the mentally ill person's nearest relative did not wish to act as such and rescinded his responsibility in favour of another. This other person objected to the use of section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and displacement of her as nearest relative was considered. Some cases from the literature are cited to help clarify the meaning of “unreasonable objection” as used in the Mental Health Act 1983.

Type
Original papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1994

References

Bluglass, R. (1986) A Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983. London: Churchill Livingstone. Pp. 45.Google Scholar
Hoggett, B. (1990) Mental Health Law. 3rd Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Pp 9093.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1991) Mental Health Act Manual 2nd Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Pp 76.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.