Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 19.06.2012 12/0628/2 AI generated

Court dismissed forced treatment order because on-call doctor was not considered an independent external physician under mental health law.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 19.06.2012 12/0628/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court revoked the decision to continue involuntary psychiatric treatment because the on-call physician failed to meet the statutory definition of an independent external doctor. Although the physician issued a monitoring order, the court held that their role as an on-call doctor did not constitute the required independence under the Mental Health Act. Consequently, the legal prerequisites for maintaining the treatment order without patient consent were not satisfied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Mental Health Act sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12; A physician acting as an on-call doctor is not considered an independent external physician for the purpose of issuing monitoring orders, thereby invalidating continued involuntary treatment if no other independent external physician is available.

Keywords

AI generated
involuntary psychiatric treatment independent external physician on-call doctor status monitoring order validity Mental Health Act provisions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Mental Health Act sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
AI generated
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__265
Employer's disciplinary power upheld; court dismissed employee's appeal regarding termination without notice.
admin_2015_helsinki__124
Mental health law appeal dismissed; court upheld administrative decision regarding patient rights and treatment measures.
admin_2009_helsinki__504
Administrative court upheld psychiatrist's order to continue involuntary psychiatric hospitalization under Mental Health Act.
admin_2010_kuopio__608
Administrative court dismissed private doctor's involuntary psychiatric commitment order due to lack of official authority.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2024:85
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against lower court's dismissal of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization due to procedural error.

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

Asiassa oli hallinto-oikeudessa kysymys siitä, onko sairaalassa etupäivystäjänä toiminut lääkäri ollut mielenterveyslaissa tarkoitetulla tavalla ulkopuolinen lääkäri siten, että hän on voinut laatia tarkkailulähetteen (M1).

Potilaan tahdonvastaista hoitoa oli jatkettu (M3) hoitoonmääräämispäätöksellä mielenterveyslain 8 §:n ja 12 §:n nojalla. Kyseinen päätös oli ollut voimassa 6 kuukautta. Tämän jälkeen oli mielenterveyslain 9 §:n mukaan selvitetty, ovatko edellytykset hoitoon määräämiselle tahdosta riippumatta edelleen olemassa. Sairaalassa keikkapäivystyksiä suorittanut lääkäri oli toiminut etupäivystäjänä ja tässä roolissa laatinut tarkkailulähetteen (M1).

Vaikka kyseinen lääkäri ei tuona aikana ollut tehnyt muita potilasta koskevia päätöksiä eikä hoitotoimenpiteitä, häntä ei voitu pitää mielenterveyslakia koskevassa hallituksen esityksessä tarkoitetulla tavalla ulkopuolisena lääkärinä.

Hallinto-oikeus kumosi hoitoonmääräämispäätöksen.

Mielenterveyslaki 8 §, 9 §, 10 §, 11 § ja 12 §