If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Rampton patients fight smoking ban
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I know this is may provoke strong reactions from people, but I'm interested to know what peoples thoughts are on this subject.
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT] Patients at Rampton high security psychiatric hospital, which houses some of the country's most dangerous criminals, are challenging a smoking ban in a test case which claims the refusal to permit cigarettes in the hospital's buildings or grounds violates their human rights.
Now, I'm not in favor of the smoking ban in the first place and think this could be easily solved by allowing patients to smoke in a smoking room. What I find most surprising is that a patient has been able to claim legal aid. They deserve legal aid as much as the next person but I really dislike the though of tax money being spent on challenging this case.
Are the patients right to use human rights legislation to challenge to smoking ban ? Are should they have received legal aid ?
:thumb:
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT] Patients at Rampton high security psychiatric hospital, which houses some of the country's most dangerous criminals, are challenging a smoking ban in a test case which claims the refusal to permit cigarettes in the hospital's buildings or grounds violates their human rights.
Now, I'm not in favor of the smoking ban in the first place and think this could be easily solved by allowing patients to smoke in a smoking room. What I find most surprising is that a patient has been able to claim legal aid. They deserve legal aid as much as the next person but I really dislike the though of tax money being spent on challenging this case.
Are the patients right to use human rights legislation to challenge to smoking ban ? Are should they have received legal aid ?
:thumb:
0
Comments
These people are locked up, so can't just go outside for a ciggie.
preventing them from smoking might be considered an additional punishment, and this might very well be a human rights issue.
If human rights might be being violated, then of course the person should receive legal aid.
IMHO the HRA is being misused by the criminals and isn't helping the people it's meant to protect, ie the law abiding.
I hope the crims get laughed out of court, but who knows what'll happen the way this country's going down the pan.
although i do believe we take our idea of what 'human rights' are to the extreme in this country. this is another perfect example.
Same could be said for those within the Big Brother house
Good point :thumb:
ETA: Apparently they are just exempt from this law until 2008.
It's more likely to be a case of not letting them have access to tabacco in the first place.
On the ward that I was on most recently they are banning smoking from July and already shut the smoking room at night. As a result the bathrooms were really smokey, the bath seemed to be being used as an ash tray which was gross.
To be honest, being held in a hospital with people who are really mentally unwell when you yourself are unwell is really scary. I can't imagine how bad it would be if the other patients were all smokers being denied cigarettes...
Also worth noting is that not all the people in that hospital have commited crimes anyway.
Smoking is important to smokers. That they might be criminals is irrelevant since the smoking ban is not part of the punishment. Hospitals and other such instututions should provide the facilities for them to smoke.
Incidentally, I'd like to see prison screws trying to implement a smoking ban in their jails.
And the same stories mean that many of us treasure it more.
These people are being punished enough already. To then remove their ability to smoke, whilst denying them a vote on the matter, just because the Govt has decided to incarcerate them somewhere which they define as a "place of work" under a law which the Govt put in place...
My thoughts exactly.
'Rampton Hospital provides a national service for patients with a learning disability, Deaf male patients and women requiring high secure care. It also provides services for men suffering from mental illness and personality disorder. The Hospital is also a pilot site for a service caring for men with severe and dangerous personailty disorders.
About a quarter of the patients have had no significant contact with the criminal justice system, but have been detained under the Mental Health Act and are considered to require treatment in conditions of high security owing to their "dangerous, violent or criminal propensities". Others have been convicted of an offence by the courts and either ordered to be detained in hospital or subsequently transferred there from prison.'
You can also see more details of the work at Rampton here -
http://www.nottinghamshirehealthcare.nhs.uk/our-services/forensic-services/rampton-hospital
I have to be honest, I don't see how enforcing a ban on smoking, including banning people smoking outside, that they have access to anyway, will make treating some severe mental health problems easier. As mentioned earlier the law allows people in such a secure setting to be allowed to smoke, so this seems like a decision to introduce prohibition without any consent from the patients, who have no choice about being there, despite not being, in many cases, criminals.
So I guess patients have less rights than prisoners.