Onder 3.11 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 17 augustus 2020

169. 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 Vanha Vaasa Hospital after obtaining a medical observation report from another doctor in that establishment. In the Finnish system medical evaluation is thus done by two physicians of the same mental hospital in which the patient is detained. The patients do not therefore have the opportunity to benefit from a second, independent psychiatric opinion. The Court finds such an opportunity to be an important safeguard against possible arbitrariness in decision-making where the continuation of confinement in involuntary care is concerned. In this connection the Court also refers to the CPT’s recommendation that periodic review of an order to treat a patient against his or her will in a psychiatric hospital should involve a psychiatric opinion which is independent of the hospital in which the patient is detained (…).”

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/447d4e5404e2dbc74ba796936eb27fcca9f9ebe0d34180d3b54f44ff51b24f99 | shasum -a 256