Onder 2.9. Parket bij de Hoge Raad 17 september 2013

“The Court first draws attention to the fact that, in the present case, the decisions to continue the applicant’s involuntary confinement after the initial care order were made by the head physician of the Vanha Vaasa hospital after having obtained a medical observation statement by another physician of that establishment. In the Finnish system the medical evaluation is thus made by two physicians of the same mental hospital in which the patient is detained. The patients do no therefore have a possibility to benefit from a second, independent psychiatric opinion. The Court finds such a possibility to be an important safeguard against possible arbitrariness in the decision-making when the continuation of confinement to involuntary care is concerned. In this respect the Court also refers to the CPT’s recommendation that the periodic review of an order to treat a patient against his of her will in a psychiatric hospital should involve a psychiatric opinion which is independent of the hospital in which the patient is detained.” (rov. 169)

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/f995cdfdb74e93d1847dbea8cd3c83154344a7fd203a692da17c947706afafe2 | shasum -a 256