- Email: [email protected]
No Doctrine of Diminished Responsibility in Matrimonial Cases
610 would become appalling be misunderstood by a
Medicine and the Law
complications, for they could only patient in the condition of this
lady.
Departure from Recognised Practice A PSYCHIATRIST undertook early in 1949 the treatment of an intelligent middle-aged woman in an anxiety A
state.
months she saw him in his consulting-room and him copiously as part of the therapeutic process, giving or sending him the letters, which he later returned to her and which she preserved. She developed towards him deep feelings of love, obsession, and bondage, which he explained to her as being part of the process of transference, and he advised her to continue the treatment as she had a good prospect of recovery. After six months she was better in health, but felt herself to be deeply in love with him and was convinced that he was not indifferent to her. It was decided that the sessions should cease; but the doctor, taking the view that a sudden withdrawal might cause a relapse, decided on a series of friendly and innocent social contacts with her, involving meals in restaurants and taxi journeys, a single visit to her home, and, the trial judge found, conversations about a holiday or weekends together; but the doctor gradually withdrew from the relationship, and the woman, by then emotionally aroused and distressed, attempted suicide at his home. He thereupon resumed the psychotherapeutic treatment in a final attempt to resolve the transference, but brought it to an end as it was proving of no avail. The woman’s mental condition deteriorated to such a degree that she became wholly incapable of work. For
some
wrote to
His Lordship fully realised the dangers to doctors in this branch of the profession, and so did this doctor. But his Lordship was forced to conclude that with the best intentions in the world he had made a tragic mistake; and there had been here a departure from the recognised standard, which had resulted in gross deterioration in the patient’s health. On the evidence which his Lordship preferred it would also amount to negligence in treatment, His Lordship was not laying down as law that no psychia. trist could in any case take a patient out; that would be ridiculous. But having regard to the nature of this patient his Lordship was not satisfied that there was any body of opinion which would have thought it desirable to bring this highly sexed, highly emotional woman, already deeply in love with her doctor, into intercourse of the kind that occurred here. Negligence of that kind had been estab. lished and there must be judgment for the plaintiff for E6000 damages. A stay of execution on terms, pending consideration of an appeal, would be granted.
She decided on proceedings against the doctor, alleging that her illness was caused by his wilful misconduct (including gross sexual misconduct) and professional negligence, but for various reasons those proceedings The doctor denied the were delayed for 10 years.
allegations. Mr. Justice
BARRY said that in the first phase of treatthere was nothing improper or unprofessional in the doctor’s conduct, and his Lordship entirely absolved him from any charge of misconduct of a sexual kind; but the decision to embark on social contacts which involved being alone with this patient, whatever the motive might be, had to be judged in the light of the medical evidence as to the duties and obligations of a psychiatrist dealing with a patient. ment
A
Landau v. Wemer.-Queen’s Bench Division: Barry, J. March 7, 1961. Counsel and solicitors: G. R. F. Morris, Q.c., and James Dunlop (C, M, Beck & Co.); Norman Richards, Q.c., and John Spokes (Le Brasseur and
Oakley). M. M. HILL Barrister-at-Law.
No Doctrine of Diminished Responsibility in Matrimonial Cases A wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of the husband’s cruelty. The husband denied the charge. Medical evidence established that in 1937 the husband sustained a head injury, followed by loss of memory for about five months. Later, his condition improved, but he continued tp suffer from depression and irritability, being liable to out. bursts of hysteria, and was irresponsible in some ways. By 1948, when the marriage took place, the husband, though not fully recovered, was well enough to undertake the ordinary duties of marriage. In 1955, he fell in his bathroom and, in falling, injured his head in the area of the previous injury, Thereafter he suffered from loss of memory, headaches, lassitude, and loss of powers of concentration, and became so irresponsible in business matters that in 1957, on medical advice, he retired and his affairs were thereafter managed by someone else, who was given a power of attorney.
psychotherapist must exercise the very greatest care when delving into the dark secrets of the human mind and explosive emotional forces, for if mistakes were made in psychotherapy or Mr. Justice KARMINSKI said that there was no suggestion analyses which employed the technique of transference the that the husband’s mental condition was at any time such consequences might be disastrous. It was most important to adhere to the highest standards of treatment within the existing as to amount to insanity within the McNaughten rules, state of knowledge of the profession. The doctor here had Had that plea been established, there was no doubt that agreed that in originating the technique of social contact with the charge of cruelty must have failed. Counsel for the this patient he was departing from the standard practice in this husband had advanced the novel argument that there special branch of medicine, but said that it was justified by the might be a half-way house between full legal responsiexceptional circumstances of this case. His Lordship, however, bility and that immunity from legal responsibility which had considered the evidence of the distinguished practitioners insanity within the McNaughten rules conferred, on an in this branch of medicine who had all spoken with one voice on this subject, and he accepted without hesitation the evidence of analogy with the doctrine of diminished responsibility introduced into the law by section 2 of the Homicide Act Dr. Stafford-Clark that there could be no separation in this kind of case between social and professional contacts, that it was 1957. That doctrine, however, applied only to homicide an exacting form of treatment, and that a doctor was put into cases. The matrimonial law knew no doctrine analogous such great difficulties if he had any social contacts with his to it. The husband’s treatment of the wife, taken asa patients that if they became unavoidable a doctor should whole, and having regard to its effect on her health, withdraw from the case. It followed that talk of holidays with amounted to legal cruelty and she was entitled to a decree a patient, even though not seriously intended and actuated by nisi. kindness, and frequent social meetings or gestures of affection, v. Graham-Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division: KarJl1ÎI1Sii, would be utterly disastrous for a patient undergoing this kind 3’. Graham March 2, 1961. Counsel and solicitors: Cyril Harvey, Q.C., and GU) Seward (Wrentmore & Son, for A. E. Hamlin, Sheringham); J. B. Latly! of treatment, a patient who had already declared her passion for and J. Elson Rees (Lee Ockerby, Johnson & Co.). Q.c., the doctor concerned and was highly sexed. In such circumD. R. ELLISON stances
such social contacts would
cease to
be treatment and
Barrister-at-Law.
Medicine and the Law
complications, for they could only patient in the condition of this
lady.
Departure from Recognised Practice A PSYCHIATRIST undertook early in 1949 the treatment of an intelligent middle-aged woman in an anxiety A
state.
months she saw him in his consulting-room and him copiously as part of the therapeutic process, giving or sending him the letters, which he later returned to her and which she preserved. She developed towards him deep feelings of love, obsession, and bondage, which he explained to her as being part of the process of transference, and he advised her to continue the treatment as she had a good prospect of recovery. After six months she was better in health, but felt herself to be deeply in love with him and was convinced that he was not indifferent to her. It was decided that the sessions should cease; but the doctor, taking the view that a sudden withdrawal might cause a relapse, decided on a series of friendly and innocent social contacts with her, involving meals in restaurants and taxi journeys, a single visit to her home, and, the trial judge found, conversations about a holiday or weekends together; but the doctor gradually withdrew from the relationship, and the woman, by then emotionally aroused and distressed, attempted suicide at his home. He thereupon resumed the psychotherapeutic treatment in a final attempt to resolve the transference, but brought it to an end as it was proving of no avail. The woman’s mental condition deteriorated to such a degree that she became wholly incapable of work. For
some
wrote to
His Lordship fully realised the dangers to doctors in this branch of the profession, and so did this doctor. But his Lordship was forced to conclude that with the best intentions in the world he had made a tragic mistake; and there had been here a departure from the recognised standard, which had resulted in gross deterioration in the patient’s health. On the evidence which his Lordship preferred it would also amount to negligence in treatment, His Lordship was not laying down as law that no psychia. trist could in any case take a patient out; that would be ridiculous. But having regard to the nature of this patient his Lordship was not satisfied that there was any body of opinion which would have thought it desirable to bring this highly sexed, highly emotional woman, already deeply in love with her doctor, into intercourse of the kind that occurred here. Negligence of that kind had been estab. lished and there must be judgment for the plaintiff for E6000 damages. A stay of execution on terms, pending consideration of an appeal, would be granted.
She decided on proceedings against the doctor, alleging that her illness was caused by his wilful misconduct (including gross sexual misconduct) and professional negligence, but for various reasons those proceedings The doctor denied the were delayed for 10 years.
allegations. Mr. Justice
BARRY said that in the first phase of treatthere was nothing improper or unprofessional in the doctor’s conduct, and his Lordship entirely absolved him from any charge of misconduct of a sexual kind; but the decision to embark on social contacts which involved being alone with this patient, whatever the motive might be, had to be judged in the light of the medical evidence as to the duties and obligations of a psychiatrist dealing with a patient. ment
A
Landau v. Wemer.-Queen’s Bench Division: Barry, J. March 7, 1961. Counsel and solicitors: G. R. F. Morris, Q.c., and James Dunlop (C, M, Beck & Co.); Norman Richards, Q.c., and John Spokes (Le Brasseur and
Oakley). M. M. HILL Barrister-at-Law.
No Doctrine of Diminished Responsibility in Matrimonial Cases A wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of the husband’s cruelty. The husband denied the charge. Medical evidence established that in 1937 the husband sustained a head injury, followed by loss of memory for about five months. Later, his condition improved, but he continued tp suffer from depression and irritability, being liable to out. bursts of hysteria, and was irresponsible in some ways. By 1948, when the marriage took place, the husband, though not fully recovered, was well enough to undertake the ordinary duties of marriage. In 1955, he fell in his bathroom and, in falling, injured his head in the area of the previous injury, Thereafter he suffered from loss of memory, headaches, lassitude, and loss of powers of concentration, and became so irresponsible in business matters that in 1957, on medical advice, he retired and his affairs were thereafter managed by someone else, who was given a power of attorney.
psychotherapist must exercise the very greatest care when delving into the dark secrets of the human mind and explosive emotional forces, for if mistakes were made in psychotherapy or Mr. Justice KARMINSKI said that there was no suggestion analyses which employed the technique of transference the that the husband’s mental condition was at any time such consequences might be disastrous. It was most important to adhere to the highest standards of treatment within the existing as to amount to insanity within the McNaughten rules, state of knowledge of the profession. The doctor here had Had that plea been established, there was no doubt that agreed that in originating the technique of social contact with the charge of cruelty must have failed. Counsel for the this patient he was departing from the standard practice in this husband had advanced the novel argument that there special branch of medicine, but said that it was justified by the might be a half-way house between full legal responsiexceptional circumstances of this case. His Lordship, however, bility and that immunity from legal responsibility which had considered the evidence of the distinguished practitioners insanity within the McNaughten rules conferred, on an in this branch of medicine who had all spoken with one voice on this subject, and he accepted without hesitation the evidence of analogy with the doctrine of diminished responsibility introduced into the law by section 2 of the Homicide Act Dr. Stafford-Clark that there could be no separation in this kind of case between social and professional contacts, that it was 1957. That doctrine, however, applied only to homicide an exacting form of treatment, and that a doctor was put into cases. The matrimonial law knew no doctrine analogous such great difficulties if he had any social contacts with his to it. The husband’s treatment of the wife, taken asa patients that if they became unavoidable a doctor should whole, and having regard to its effect on her health, withdraw from the case. It followed that talk of holidays with amounted to legal cruelty and she was entitled to a decree a patient, even though not seriously intended and actuated by nisi. kindness, and frequent social meetings or gestures of affection, v. Graham-Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division: KarJl1ÎI1Sii, would be utterly disastrous for a patient undergoing this kind 3’. Graham March 2, 1961. Counsel and solicitors: Cyril Harvey, Q.C., and GU) Seward (Wrentmore & Son, for A. E. Hamlin, Sheringham); J. B. Latly! of treatment, a patient who had already declared her passion for and J. Elson Rees (Lee Ockerby, Johnson & Co.). Q.c., the doctor concerned and was highly sexed. In such circumD. R. ELLISON stances
such social contacts would
cease to
be treatment and
Barrister-at-Law.