(c) THE THIRD PARTY : I N T E R I G H T S ( §§ 139 - 142)
139. On the basis otf the study referred to in §§ 112 - 114 above, INTERIGHTS submitted that in central and east European countries, the placement of mentally disordered persons in a social care home was viewed solely in terms of social protection and was governed by contractual law. Since such placements were not regarded as form of deprivation of liberty under domestic law, the procedural safeguards available in relation to involuntary psychiatric confinement were not applicable.
140. Interights contended that situations of this nature were comparable to that examined in the case of H.L. v. the United Kingdom (cited above), in which criticism had been levelled at the system prior to 2007 in the United Kingdom, whereby the common - law doctrine of necessity had permitted the "informal" detention of compliant incapacitated persons with mental disorders. The Court had held that the lack of any procedural rules on the admission and detention of such persons was striking. In its view, the contrast between this dearth of regulation and the extensive network of safeguards applicable to formal psychiatric committals covered by mental - health legislation was significant. In the absence of a formalised admission procedure, indicating who would propose admission, for what reasons and on what basis, and given the lack of indication as to the length of the detention or the nature of treatment and care, the hospital's health - care professionals had assumed full control of the liberty & treatment of a vulnerable incapacitated person solely on the basis of their own clinical assessments completed as and when they saw fit. While not doubting that those professionals had acted in good faith and in the applicant's best interests, the Court had observed that the very purpose of procedural safeguards was to protect individuals against any misjudgments and professional lapses (H.L. v. the United Kingdom, cited above , §§ 1230 - 121)
141. Interights urged the Court to remain consistent with that approach and to find that in the present case the informal nature of admission to and continued detention in a social care home was at odds with the guarantees against arbitrariness under Article 5. The courts had not been involved at any stage of the proceedings and no other independent body had been assigned the task of monitoring the institutions in question. The lack of regulation coupled with the vulnerability of mental disordered persons facilitated abuses of fundamental rights in a context of extremely limited supervision.
142. The third party further submitted that in most cases of this kind, placements were automatic as there were few possibilities of alternative social assistance . It contended that the authorities should be under a practical obligation to provide for appropriate measures, that were less restrictive of personal liberty but were nonetheless capable of ensuring medical care and social services for mentally disordered persons. This would be a means of applying the principle that the rights guaranteed by the Convention should not be theoretical or illusory but practical and effective. "
Mit diesen Feststellungen der Menschenrechtsorganisation Interights wird das Hauptproblem auch hier in FELIX AUSTRIA ausreichend beleuchtet und aufgedeckt ! Es gibt hierzulande keinerlei Rechtsschutz gegen konsenslose Verbringung in ein Pflegeheim oder spezielles Hascherlheim ! Während die akute (und auch langfristige ! ) psychiatrische Unterbringung & Behandlung penibelst geregelt ist durch das Unterbringungsgesetz des Bundes mit ausreichendem Rechtsschutz
:http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002936
besteht im Bereich der rein sozialen und fürsorgerischen Unterbringung in Heimen
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003231
eine gigantische Rechtsschutz - Lücke. Diese völlig unzumutbare und auch unvertretbare Lücke muß nun schleunigst geschlossen werden durch :
1. Aufstockung der bundesrechtlichen "Bewohnervertretung " auf das Doppelte oder noch besser auf das Dreifache und schonungslose Überprüfung sämtlicher Heimaufnahmen auf Konsens und Kontrakt !
2. Antragsrecht samt Rekursrecht bis zum OGH für jede sozial engagierte Person zur gerichtlichen Überprüfung konsensloser Heimaufnahmen auch nur bei geringstem Verdacht.
3 Veröffentlichung sämtlicher Entscheidungen der HA - Gerichte im RIS und auch der entsprechenden Gesamtregisterzahlen aus der VJ - Verfahrensautomation der Justiz !
STOP FOR ABUSES IN FORM OF SOCIAL DETENTION & SLAVERY !
139. On the basis otf the study referred to in §§ 112 - 114 above, INTERIGHTS submitted that in central and east European countries, the placement of mentally disordered persons in a social care home was viewed solely in terms of social protection and was governed by contractual law. Since such placements were not regarded as form of deprivation of liberty under domestic law, the procedural safeguards available in relation to involuntary psychiatric confinement were not applicable.
140. Interights contended that situations of this nature were comparable to that examined in the case of H.L. v. the United Kingdom (cited above), in which criticism had been levelled at the system prior to 2007 in the United Kingdom, whereby the common - law doctrine of necessity had permitted the "informal" detention of compliant incapacitated persons with mental disorders. The Court had held that the lack of any procedural rules on the admission and detention of such persons was striking. In its view, the contrast between this dearth of regulation and the extensive network of safeguards applicable to formal psychiatric committals covered by mental - health legislation was significant. In the absence of a formalised admission procedure, indicating who would propose admission, for what reasons and on what basis, and given the lack of indication as to the length of the detention or the nature of treatment and care, the hospital's health - care professionals had assumed full control of the liberty & treatment of a vulnerable incapacitated person solely on the basis of their own clinical assessments completed as and when they saw fit. While not doubting that those professionals had acted in good faith and in the applicant's best interests, the Court had observed that the very purpose of procedural safeguards was to protect individuals against any misjudgments and professional lapses (H.L. v. the United Kingdom, cited above , §§ 1230 - 121)
141. Interights urged the Court to remain consistent with that approach and to find that in the present case the informal nature of admission to and continued detention in a social care home was at odds with the guarantees against arbitrariness under Article 5. The courts had not been involved at any stage of the proceedings and no other independent body had been assigned the task of monitoring the institutions in question. The lack of regulation coupled with the vulnerability of mental disordered persons facilitated abuses of fundamental rights in a context of extremely limited supervision.
142. The third party further submitted that in most cases of this kind, placements were automatic as there were few possibilities of alternative social assistance . It contended that the authorities should be under a practical obligation to provide for appropriate measures, that were less restrictive of personal liberty but were nonetheless capable of ensuring medical care and social services for mentally disordered persons. This would be a means of applying the principle that the rights guaranteed by the Convention should not be theoretical or illusory but practical and effective. "
Mit diesen Feststellungen der Menschenrechtsorganisation Interights wird das Hauptproblem auch hier in FELIX AUSTRIA ausreichend beleuchtet und aufgedeckt ! Es gibt hierzulande keinerlei Rechtsschutz gegen konsenslose Verbringung in ein Pflegeheim oder spezielles Hascherlheim ! Während die akute (und auch langfristige ! ) psychiatrische Unterbringung & Behandlung penibelst geregelt ist durch das Unterbringungsgesetz des Bundes mit ausreichendem Rechtsschutz
:http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002936
besteht im Bereich der rein sozialen und fürsorgerischen Unterbringung in Heimen
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003231
eine gigantische Rechtsschutz - Lücke. Diese völlig unzumutbare und auch unvertretbare Lücke muß nun schleunigst geschlossen werden durch :
1. Aufstockung der bundesrechtlichen "Bewohnervertretung " auf das Doppelte oder noch besser auf das Dreifache und schonungslose Überprüfung sämtlicher Heimaufnahmen auf Konsens und Kontrakt !
2. Antragsrecht samt Rekursrecht bis zum OGH für jede sozial engagierte Person zur gerichtlichen Überprüfung konsensloser Heimaufnahmen auch nur bei geringstem Verdacht.
3 Veröffentlichung sämtlicher Entscheidungen der HA - Gerichte im RIS und auch der entsprechenden Gesamtregisterzahlen aus der VJ - Verfahrensautomation der Justiz !
STOP FOR ABUSES IN FORM OF SOCIAL DETENTION & SLAVERY !
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen