The law governing the practice of professionals (that is the law of tort) requires professionals to perform at a level considered to be reasonable. It allows redress, usually in the form of financial compensation for those harmed by failure to meet such standards. Lawyers would, I think, see the law of tort as seeking to further three important social goals. First, it deters socially undesirable conduct by forcing wrongdoers to pay the consequences, that is it operates as a deterrent and reduces the likelihood that others will engage in such actions. Second, by transferring monies or some other forms of compensation, justice (distributive justice that is) becomes established. Third, the cost of successful actions means that if the defendent has insurance – and in England and Wales that mostly means the Medical Defence Union – the cost of these actions are not borne by him alone but by all the policy holders. They in turn may be able to pass on the increased costs of insurance to others. In this way policy holders and/or customers collectively bear the cost of a predictable number of negligent claims (Klein & Glover, 1983). To these three goals can be added a fourth: that patients and psychiatrists alike know what can reasonably be expected of them and know the acceptable standards.

For convenience, the rights of mental patients can be examined following the thrust of the tort law generally.