In court hearings, where the issue of person’s hospitalisation and treatment is under consideration, the person usually does not participate and is not invited to, and even the lawyer does not meet with the person he/she is representing. Such observations were made in the report of the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office after a follow-up visit to the Psychiatric Branch of the Public Hospital of Klaipėda. In addition, the lawyer of the represented person always agrees with the position of the Applicant, i.e. hospital, regarding the request to hospitalize a person who is incapacitated in a certain field.
After assessing the situation, the Seimas Ombudsperson Erika Leonaitė addressed the Ministry of Justice with recommendations regarding provision of the secondary legal aid guaranteed by the state, in order to properly ensure the rights of persons who are incapacitated in particular field, while the court is considering the question of their hospitalisation and treatment with the consent of their guardian for the period of more than 3 days.
The Seimas Ombudsperson observed that although the main focus of the report issued after the follow-up visit is on ensuring the material conditions, availability of facilities and information for persons with disabilities, and the possibility to submit complaints and requests, it has also identified potentially systemic human rights problems related to the right of the disabled persons to be heard when the court considers the issue of their possible hospitalisation and in situations determined by the lack of social services, when a psychiatric hospital has to perform the function of a social care institution.
“The situation where the issue of hospitalisation and treatment of persons recognised as incapacitated is decided without providing them an opportunity to be heard, raises serious concern, because such persons are basically treated as mute objects, although in a specific case they may be able to express their opinion”, concludes the Seimas Ombudsperson.
Evaluating the stated circumstances, E. Leonaitė notes that there are doubts about the procedure for providing lawyers’ services to individuals: “I see the need to improve representation of persons recognised as incompetent in the judicial process. Especially, as it is known that in Lithuania the limitation of capacity, which in itself is incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is still widely applied in practice, and the mechanism of assistance in decision-making has basically not been created”.
Leonaitė also singles out a systemic human rights problem caused by the lack of social services that was observed during the inspection, namely when socially vulnerable persons are accommodated in psychiatric hospitals, although they do not need active treatment, but due to the health condition can no longer live independently and do not have relatives who can look after them or a place to live.
The report highlights that there are cases when unattended or lonely persons who need social assistance are kept in the Psychiatric Branch of the Public Hospital of Klaipėda for more than one month.
The inspection also revealed that patients who have been in the Acute Psychiatry Department for more than a week, and in some cases even three weeks, were not provided with an opportunity to be outside independently or with someone’s assistance.
In addition, the report shows positive changes related to the implementation of the recommendations provided by the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office regarding accessibility of the premises and information of the Psychiatric Branch to persons with disabilities. However, the fact that came to light, when the Public Hospital of Klaipėda submitted false and misleading information to the Seimas Ombudsperson about the improvement of the material conditions and the accessibility of the premises of the hospital’s Psychiatric Branch with the help of funds from projects, raises concerns.
Although previously the Public Hospital of Klaipėda claimed that the recommendations of the Seimas Ombudsperson were implemented with the help of the carried-out projects, during the follow-up visit it became clear that the recommendation were not only not taken into account but should have been implemented even before the initial inspection by the Seimas Ombudsperson.
Having evaluated the available information, the Seimas Ombudsperson addressed the Minister of Health with a request to identify the employees of the Hospital responsible for provision of the misleading information and to resolve the issue of their official responsibility.
Related news
