HAS the law the right to lock up an anorexic teenage girl and detain her in a clinic for treatment - by force if need be?

It is a moot point in law. For unless the girl was declared deranged under the Mental Health Act - and the one detained by the landmark ruling of High Court judge Mr Justice Wall has not been - the legal basis for her being involuntarily held is disputable.

But severe and controversial though the judge's decision may be, is it not supported by an extra-legal sentiment that says he is right - that of compassion?

For though debate may continue over Mr Justice Wall's assumption of such powers for himself and the law, the fact remains he has acted in the girl's best interest - to save her from herself. She was, we are told, at risk of starving herself to death in days. In the past, she had to be admitted to hospital as an emergency case after eating no more than a few slices of cucumber in ten days. She also had a history of absconding from clinics where she was being treated.

Against that background, the choice for the judge was to act severely to save her or allow the deadly risk to her life to continue.

Whatever the law may say - though the judge is in no doubt that it supports him - his was the right choice anyway on the basis of plain common sense and humanity.

And how many parents of schoolchildren suffering from this dangerous eating disorder will be glad of the precedent he has set.

For if his ruling happens not to be judicial, it is certainly judicious.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.