In adjudicating on matters relating to fundamental constitutional or human rights, courts make important statements about the principles which apply. The principles articulated will have a profound impact on the outcomes of such cases, and on the development of case-law in the relevant field. In the fields of medical law and mental health law, various courts have moved away from deference to medical decision-making and paternalism to a person-centred rights-based approach. However, courts in Ireland have continued to interpret mental health law in a paternalistic fashion, praising paternalism as if it is particularly suitable for mental health law. This raises profound questions about judicial attitudes to people with mental health conditions and judicial reluctance to confer full personhood on people with disabilities. This article outlines case-law in Ireland regarding paternalism in mental health law and discusses the consequences for constitutional rights in Ireland.

在对与基本宪法或人权有关的事项进行裁决时，法院会就适用的原则作出重要陈述。所阐述的原则将对此类案件的结果以及相关领域判例法的发展产生深远影响。在医疗法和精神卫生法领域，各个法院已经从对医疗决策的尊重和家长式作风转向以人为本的基于权利的方法。然而，爱尔兰的法院继续以家长式的方式解释精神卫生法，称赞家长式作风似乎特别适合精神卫生法。这引发了关于司法对精神健康状况患者的态度以及司法不愿赋予残疾人完整人格的深刻问题。