rss
J Med Ethics 2000;26:277-281 doi:10.1136/jme.26.4.277

Neither consenting nor protesting: an ethical analysis of a man with autism

  1. Kate Diesfeld
  1. University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent

      Abstract

      This article critically examines the 25 June 1998 decision by the House of Lords regarding the psychiatric admission of a man with autism.1 Mr L was able neither to consent to, nor refuse, that admission and the disposition of his case illuminates the current debate regarding best interests of vulnerable adults by the judiciary and the psychiatric profession. This article begins with the assumption that hospitalisation was not the optimum response to Mr L's condition, provides alternative approaches to the interpretation of best interest and examines principles of liberty, anti-discrimination, and equal protection.

      Footnotes

      • Kate Diesfeld, JD, is Lecturer and Legal Supervisor, Kent Law Clinic (Mental Health and Learning Disability) at Kent Law School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent. Please forward communications to kdiesfeld{at}hotmail.com

      This Article

      1. Abstract
      2. Full text
      3. PDF

      Responses

      1. Submit a response
      2. No responses published

      Register for free content

      The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

      Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.