Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 05.06.2009 09/0504/2 AI generated

Administrative court upheld psychiatrist's order to continue involuntary psychiatric hospitalization under Mental Health Act.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 05.06.2009 09/0504/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court upheld the chief physician's decision to continue involuntary psychiatric hospitalization against the patient's will. The patient had previously been admitted under a different procedural track three months earlier, which the court found did not preclude the current extension. The court ruled that the relationship between the relevant sections of the Mental Health Act allowed the continuation without a new external doctor's report.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Mielenterveyslaki 8 § 1 mom; 11 §; 12 § 1 mom; 13 §: When a person is previously admitted under the procedure of section 13, the court's approval of continued involuntary treatment under section 12 does not require a new report from an external doctor.

Keywords

AI generated
involuntary psychiatric hospitalization Mental Health Act section 12 procedural continuity chief physician authority external doctor report requirement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Mielenterveyslaki 8 § 1 mom
Mielenterveyslaki 8 § 1 mom, 11 §, 12 § 1 mom ja 13 §
Mielenterveyslaki 11 §
Mielenterveyslaki 12 § 1 mom
Mielenterveyslaki 13 §
AI generated
admin_2013_helsinki__427
Administrative court upheld mandatory psychiatric hospitalization continuation based on patient's mental state and safety risks.
admin_2002_kuopio__633
Administrative court upheld involuntary psychiatric hospitalization despite procedural delay exceeding statutory six-month deadline.
admin_1998_hame-county__628
Court dismisses complaint regarding missed deadline for involuntary psychiatric treatment continuation decision.
admin_1996_uusimaa-county__1324
Administrative court dismisses continuation of involuntary psychiatric treatment due to expired legal time limits.
admin_2004_helsinki__880
Administrative court dismissed appeal as inadmissible due to lack of legal interest in the contested decision.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Sairaalan psykiatrisesta hoidosta vastaava ylilääkäri oli määrännyt mielenterveyslain 8 §:n ja 12 §:n nojalla henkilön psykiatrista sairaalahoitoa jatkettavaksi tämän tahdosta riippumatta. Henkilöä koskeva edellinen, vajaat kolme kuukautta aikaisempi, hoitoon määrääminen oli tapahtunut mielenterveyslain 13 §:ssä tarkoitetun menettelyn mukaisesti. Hallinto-oikeus vahvisti sille alistetun hoidon jatkamista koskevan ylilääkärin päätöksen. Hallinto-oikeuden mukaan mielenterveyslain 11 §:n ja 13 §:n keskinäinen suhde huomioon ottaen vahvistamista ei estänyt se, että henkilö oli viimeksi eli ennen mielenterveyslain 12 §:n mukaista jatkopäätöstä määrätty tahdostaan riippumattomaan psykiatriseen sairaalahoitoon mielenterveyslain 13 §:n mukaisessa menettelyssä. Henkilö voitiin siten ottaa mielenterveyslain 12 §:n mukaista päätöstä edeltävään tarkkailuun ilman sairaalan ulkopuolisen lääkärin henkilöstä laatimaa tarkkailulähetettä. Äänestys 7 -3.

Mielenterveyslaki 8 § 1 mom, 11 §, 12 § 1 mom ja 13 §