Major J. (paras. 61 - 120), joined by Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and Deschamps JJ.
Dissent
McLachlin C.J. (paras. 1 - 60), joined by Gonthier and LaBel JJ.
Starson v Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722 was an important case at the Supreme Court of Canada that considered the legal requirements for determining if a person is capable of making decisions regarding their medical treatment.
On December 24, 1998, Dr. Ian Gary Swayze declared Professor Starson (a.k.a. Scott Jeffery Schutzman) incapable of consenting to proposed psychiatric treatment and should therefore be involuntarily medicated as directed. Starson applied to a legal body known as the Consent and Capacity Board for a review of this decision. On June 6, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada published its decision in the case. In a 6 to 3 decision, the majority held that Starson had the right to refuse medication.
Background
Scott Jeffery Schutzman, who changed his name to Starson and preferred to be called "Professor", obtained an electrical engineering degree and held a strong interest in physics (although it was not his profession). He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.[1] He appreciated that he was not 'normal' and that he had problems dealing with people. He acknowledged that he had mental health issues, but he refused to accept his condition as an illness. He also refused to consent to the course of medications that his physicians recommended for fear that it would diminish his thinking. He would have accepted psychotherapy but no medication.[2]
Dr. Ian Gary Swayze, who was not Starson's primary doctor but who had reviewed his medical charts, testified first. "[T]his charting is ominous. It would suggest to me a chronic, unremitting course which likely would be a future for Professor Starson, should he not receive treatment," Swayze testified.[3]
On December 24, 1998, Swayze declared Starson incapable of consenting to proposed psychiatric treatment and should therefore be involuntarily medicated as directed.
Starson applied to the Consent and Capacity Board for a review of this decision. The Board decided that, because Starson did not recognize that he was ill and that he needed treatment, Starson was not able to understand the consequences of consent; he failed to appreciate the risks and the benefits and therefore he lacked the capacity to make a decision as to treatment. Starson was subsequently charged multiple times with uttering death threats and has spent most of his later life in institutions.
Case
The issue facing the Supreme Court of Canada was, "Is the Consent and Capacity Board entitled to override Starson’s refusal and order him to undergo treatment?" The holding was, "No."
The Court "ruled that Starson did have the capability and capacity to determine his own treatment."[1]
Justice Major wrote the majority decision, that: According to the Act,[clarification needed] a person is able to consent when he understands the information relevant to making the decision, and can appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the decision. The role of the Board is solely to adjudicate on the issue of capacity and not to determine what is in the best interests of the patient.
Prior to the Starson decision, a person who does not acknowledge illness cannot accept the consequences of treatment.[4] The Court recognized that a person who has accepted the manifestations of illness, although not the final diagnosis, does not forgo capacity to refuse treatment. All the patient must do is be:
Able to understand the information about the treatment, and
Able to assess the costs and benefits of the treatment.
The patient does not have to weigh the benefits properly or rationally.
The majority also noted that psychiatrists do not always agree on diagnoses. So long as the patient can recognize the symptoms, then the court will have difficulty finding incapacity. In addition, the evidence that was given failed to meet standards of proof, the Consent Board made note over the vague references that Dr. Swayze made to medical charts and past death threats. "The medical charts themselves were not marked as exhibits at the hearing and there is no indication that the members of the board even looked at them," Justice Molloy chastised. "The evidence of a non-treating psychiatrist Dr. Ian Gary Swayze based on a chart review and unsupported by first-hand evidence of anybody is far removed from 'cogent and compelling evidence.' It is contrary to the principles of justice to interfere with important individual rights on the basis of such flimsy evidence."
Major determined that McLachlin[clarification needed] was doing what the Board did: deciding what was in the patient’s best interests.
Rationale: Denial of one’s illness is not a sufficient criterion to establish a patient’s incapacity to refuse treatment.
Critique
McLachlin CJ focussed on the delusions (such as that Pierre Trudeau was killed by aliens), where Major’s majority did not. Both McLachlin and Major agree that the issue is not a “best interests of the patient” standard. She felt, however, that the patient may be able to understand the general nature of the illness but cannot recognize that he has the illness. This means that the patient cannot appreciate the benefits of the treatment or the need for treatment.
Commentary
The majority may have accurately surmised from the following language of the Board: “it viewed with great sadness the current situation of the patient […] his life has been devastated by his mental disorder.”
"The [Supreme] Court did not change the Health Care Consent Act or even make the process more difficult."[5]
According to an article in The Ottawa Citizen,
"What the court majority ruled was that Consent and Capacity board in 1999 did not have enough evidence to support its finding that Mr. Starson was incapable of deciding on treatment."[5]
The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.
An advance healthcare directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.
Forensic psychiatry is a subspeciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology. It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. According to the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, it is defined as "a subspecialty of psychiatry in which scientific and clinical expertise is applied in legal contexts involving civil, criminal, correctional, regulatory, or legislative matters, and in specialized clinical consultations in areas such as risk assessment or employment." A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment, such as medications and psychotherapy, to criminals.
The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act regulates involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the state of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. The bipartisan bill was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank D. Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:
The Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It covers the reception, care and treatment of mentally disordered people, the management of their property and other related matters, forming part of the mental health law for the people in England and Wales. In particular, it provides the legislation by which people diagnosed with a mental disorder can be detained in a hospital or police custody and have their disorder assessed or treated against their wishes, informally known as "sectioning". Its use is reviewed and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. The Act was significantly amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. A white paper proposing changes to the act was published in 2021 following an independent review of the act by Simon Wessely.
In United States and Canadian law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision-specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms.
Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.
R v Chaulk, [1990] 3 SCR 1303 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the interpretation and constitutionality of section 16(4) of the Criminal Code, which provides for a mental disorder defence. Two accused individuals challenged the section as a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court upheld the section and provided a basis on which to interpret the section.
The Mental Health Act is an Ontario law that regulates the administration of mental health care in the province. The main purpose of the legislation is to regulate the involuntary admission of people into a psychiatric hospital. Since the changes brought about in 2000 under Bill 68, the Act allows for a community treatment order by the attending physician. This order is intended to provide comprehensive treatment outside of a psychiatric facility.
Winko v British Columbia , [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on constitutionality of the mental health laws in the Criminal Code under section 7 and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.
The Substitute Decisions Act is an act of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in Ontario, Canada. It establishes the legal criteria determining when a person has the ability to make decisions that are fundamental to his/her well-being. The ability to make these types of decisions is termed capacity and the decisions are termed consent. Capacity establishes the legal right to consent to or refuse medical treatment, choose housing arrangements and manage one's money. However, there are different tests for capacity that vary according to the type of decisions that must be made. In some instances, capacity will exist for people who do not have full capacity in the common sense understanding of the concept.
Euthanasia in Canada in its legal voluntary form is called medical assistance in dying (MAID) and it first became legal along with assisted suicide in June 2016 to allow terminally ill adults to control their deaths. In March 2021, the law was further amended by Bill C-7 which permits assisted euthanasia in additional situations, including for people with disabiliies and chronic diseases. In 2021, more than 10,000 people died by euthanasia in Canada. The intensity and breadth of Canada's MAiD program has lead to condemnation of its program by UN human rights experts and all disability rights groups in Canada.
The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so. It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the mature minor rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15.
The Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) is an Ontario law concerned with the capacity to consent to treatment.
A mental health tribunal is a specialist tribunal (hearing) empowered by law to adjudicate disputes about mental health treatment and detention, primarily by conducting independent reviews of patients diagnosed with mental disorders who are detained in psychiatric hospitals, or under outpatient commitment, and who may be subject to involuntary treatment.
Morton Birnbaum was an American lawyer and physician who advocated for the right of psychiatric patients to have adequate, humane care, and who coined the term sanism.
Covert medication, the covert administration of medicines is when medicines are administered in a disguised form, usually in food or drink, without the knowledge or consent of the individual receiving the drug.
Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital (inpatient) or in the community (outpatient).
Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
