Supreme Court gives big tick to dangerous DHB policy

0
9

Supreme Court decision supporting Waitemata DHB ban on smoking areas in โ€˜secureโ€™ mental health units called โ€œstupidโ€ by father of Waikato DHB patient whose death arose from the policy

ย 

Wednesdayโ€™s Supreme Court decision supporting the Waitemata DHBโ€™s refusal to supply safe smoking areas for acute mental health patients has been labelled โ€œa stupid decision that defies common sense, and creates a dangerous environment for acute mental health inpatients who also have smoking addiction problems.โ€

 

- Sponsor Promotion -

Dave Macpherson, a Waikato DHB member whose son Nicky Stevens died in 2015 after he was required to leave the DHBโ€™s Henry Bennett Centre acute mental health unit, unsupervised, in order to have a smoke, was commenting on the decision handed down against the appeal by a Waitemata DHB mental health patient, claiming that the patientโ€™s human rights had been breached.

 

Macpherson said his son, as well as Palmerston North Hospital patient Chelsea Brunton in May 2017, had been known suicide risks, but had been forced through similar policies to โ€œliterally go out on the street for a cigarette unsupervised, with their deaths being the result.โ€

 

โ€œThe Supreme Court, and Waitemata DHB, had better hope that no more acute mental health patients die in similar circumstances in the future, or they will have blood on their hands.โ€

 

โ€œThese organisations have been given the opportunity to show they understand the meaning of โ€˜duty of careโ€™, but are not prepared to exercise it.โ€

 

โ€œThey know that mental health services are not only understaffed and often donโ€™t have staff available to supervise patients instructed to go out onto the streets, BUT in each of these cases also have perfectly good, and safe, internal courtyards designed originally for patients to be able to safely smoke while under observation,โ€ he added.

 

Macpherson said his approach to the Waikato DHB would โ€œhopefully not be affectedโ€, as โ€œour intention is to get the DHB to change their policy, whereas the Waitemata approach was to say the DHB had no right to make such a policy.โ€