Seven years ago today [11 December 2017], the House of Lords made a landmark judgment about the state’s duty to protect people at risk of suicide.
While the Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised taking (or trying to take) your own life, the state is still responsible for protecting people who are at risk.
The decision in the Savage Case in 2008 helped to strengthen the laws behind this, extending these human rights protections to people in hospitals. Here’s why it’s so important, and how our human rights come into play.
What Was the Savage Case About?
The full name for the case is Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, and it was heard in the House of Lords. Cases don’t go to the House of Lords anymore, instead, the highest court in the UK is the Supreme Court.
It essentially ruled that hospitals are responsible for protecting patients who are at risk of suicide. It centered around a woman who was being treated in a secure psychiatric ward who was able to walk out of the hospital and onto nearby train tracks where she died. She had been an inpatient several times before, and had developed severe paranoia and delusions, as well as previously attempting to jump out of the window in an effort to escape.
The court ruled she had deserved better protection. This comes from Article 2 of the Human Rights Convention, the right to life. As well as stopping the state unlawfully taking the life of any citizen, it also imposes an obligation on states to safeguard lives they are responsible for. The Savage case ensured hospitals are included within this.
This case also emphasised the vital need for personal considerations in the way hospitals fulfill their duty to patients. The judges went much further than just creating a basic legal test, stressing that attempts to prevent suicide should be for the patient’s benefit. So, hospitals must consider staff training, a proper system for monitoring mental health issues, and, crucially, respond to each patient’s needs.
For example, keeping a patient locked up or secluded might do more harm than good. Instead, the court said each patient’s independence should be the focus, along with a good quality of life. This considered approach has been reflected in the increased reliance on human rights to make sure vulnerable people receive full and fair treatment.
Continue reading
I am finding this difficult to comprehend. I have a right to life under the European Convention of Human Rights. What if I do not want to exercise that right? I would like to see broader discussion around this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment