Is mental capacity in the eye of the beholder?

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 30-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Ruck Keene

Purpose The purpose of this paper – written by a practising barrister specialising in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – is to survey law and practice in England and Wales with a view to sketch out a preliminary answer as to whether it can be said there is, in fact, any legally defensible concept of mental capacity. Design/methodology/approach Review of case-law in England and Wales and relevant domestic and international law, in particular the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”). Findings It is right, and inescapable, to say that mental capacity is in the eye of the beholder, and will remain so even if we seek to recast our legislative provisions. Rather – and perhaps ironically – the conclusion set out above means that we need to look less at the person being assessed, and more at the person doing the assessing. We also need to further look at the process of assessment so as to ensure that those who are required to carry it out are self-aware and acutely alive to the values and pre-conceptions that they may be bringing to the situation. Research limitations/implications It seems to me that it is right, and inescapable, to say that mental capacity is in the eye of the beholder, and will remain so even if we seek to recast our legislative provisions. Absent major developments in neuroscience, it will inescapably remain a concept which requires judgments based on interactions between the assessor and the assessed. But that is not thereby to say that it is an irremediably relative and flawed concept upon which we cannot place any weight. Rather the conclusion set out above means that we need to look less at the person being assessed, and more at the person doing the assessing. We also need further to look at the process of assessment so as to ensure that those who are required to carry it out are self-aware and acutely alive to the values and pre-conceptions that they may be bringing to the situation. Originality/value This paper serves as a reflection on the best part of a decade spent grappling with the MCA 2005 in and out of the court room, a decade increasingly informed by and challenged by the requirements of the CRPD.

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Butler-Cole

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to outline the current state of the Court of Protection case law on capacity to consent to sexual relations and identifies a number of difficulties with the present position. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews and summarises the current case law. Findings This paper identifies problems arising with the court’s approach to assessing capacity to consent to sexual relations, in particular the problems caused by treating decisions about sexual relations as generic, but decisions about contact with other people as specific. Originality/value This paper is a comprehensive summary of the current state of the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in this sensitive area.


2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 428-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Allen

SummaryAlthough psychiatrists in England and Wales are generally familiar with the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, there is a body of law that is available to assist patients in the community with which they are generally less familiar. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that it is a rather confused amalgam of different statutes and case law affecting each other in ways that are less than clear. The other is that the care programme approach (CPA) was meant to cut through all this and make care provision straightforward. In fact, the latter has never been the case and community care law has always sat uneasily alongside the CPA, but in October 2008 the CPA was withdrawn from some patients with mental health problems. This article explains what is meant by community care law and how psychiatrists can use it to help their patients.


2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Curtice ◽  
Isurima Katuwawela ◽  
Richard McCollum

SummaryIssues relating to capacity are increasingly topical and relevant, particularly following the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Powers of attorney are one such issue that requires the assessment of capacity for their execution. This article focuses on lasting powers of attorney (LPAs), which were introduced under the Mental Capacity Act in 2007. We describe how LPAs evolved and how they have been used since the inception of the Act. We review salient case law. In doing so, we elucidate pertinent issues for clinicians, particularly in the case of health and welfare LPAs: for the first time in England and Wales, the law allows donors to nominate an attorney to make decisions about their personal health and welfare once they become incapacitated.


Dementia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Dixon ◽  
Judy Laing ◽  
Christine Valentine

In this article, we review current advocacy services for people with dementia in England and Wales (provided, respectively, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 , the Mental Health Act 1983 /2007 and the Care Act 2014) through the lens of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). We examine what a human rights’ approach to advocacy support would entail, and whether current frameworks in England and Wales are adequate for this approach and provide a sufficient safeguard. First, we consider how the human rights of persons with dementia have become increasingly important and the extent to which the CRPD provides an opportunity to bolster safeguards and protection. Second, we discuss cause and case advocacy, and how these advocacy models could be shaped by the CRPD to promote the rights of persons with dementia at each stage of the disease. Third, we highlight current dilemmas and challenges in the provision of advocacy support in England and Wales by focusing on case law, commissioning of services and current practice. In particular, we analyse how the different legislative schemes have given rise to some confusion about the various advocacy provisions, as well as potential for overlap and discrepancies between different regimes. We also highlight the need for further research to address important gaps in knowledge, including the scale of need, patterns of referral and attitudes to advocacy services. The article concludes by highlighting how advocacy support could be recalibrated as a universal right to promote the aims and aspirations of the CRPD, and how education is needed to address the stigma of dementia and promote the benefits of advocacy in protecting the rights of those with dementia.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (22) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Alex Ruck Keene ◽  
Adrian D Ward

<p>This article compares the bases upon which actions are taken or decisions are made in relation to those considered to lack the material capacity in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘MCA’) and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (‘AWI’). Through a study of (1) the statutory provisions; and (2) the case-law decided under the two statutes, it addresses the question of whether the use of the term ‘best interests’ in the MCA and its – deliberate – absence from the AWI makes a material difference when comparing the two Acts. This question is of considerable importance when examining the compatibility of these legislative regimes in the United Kingdom with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘CRPD’).</p><p><br />The article is written by two practising lawyers, one a Scottish solicitor, and one an English barrister. Each has sought to cast a critical eye over the legislative framework on the other side of the border between their two jurisdictions as well as over the framework (and jurisprudence) in their own jurisdiction. Its comparative analysis is not one that has previously been attempted; it shows that both jurisdictions are on their own journeys, although not ones with quite the direction that might be anticipated from a plain reading of the respective statutes.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-173
Author(s):  
Owen P. O'Sullivan

Purpose The prominence of the best interests principle in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 represented an important transition to a more resolutely patient-centred model regarding decision-making for incapable adults (“P”). This paper aims to examine the courts’ consideration of P’s values, wishes and beliefs in the context of medical treatment, reflect on whether this has resulted in a wide interpretation of the best interests standard and consider how this impacts clinical decision makers. Design/methodology/approach A particular focus will be on case law from the Court of Protection of England and Wales and the Supreme Court of the UK. Cases have been selected for discussion on the basis of the significance of their judgements for the field, the range of issues they illustrate and the extent of commentary and attention they have received in the literature. They are presented as a narrative review and are non-exhaustive. Findings With respect to values, wishes and beliefs, the best interests standard’s interpretation in the courts has been widely varied. Opposing tensions and thematic conflicts have emerged from this case law and were analysed from the perspective of the clinical decision maker. Originality/value This review illustrates the complexity and gravity of decisions of the clinical decision makers and the courts have considered in the context of best interests determinations for incapacitated adults undergoing medical treatment. Subsequent to the first such case before the Supreme Court of the UK, emerging case law trends relating to capacity legislation are considered.


2021 ◽  
pp. 37-58
Author(s):  
Jo Samanta ◽  
Ash Samanta

This chapter deals with consent as a necessary precondition for medical treatment of competent adults. It provides an overview of the common law basis of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, followed by discussion of issues relating to information disclosure, public policy, and the key case of Montgomery and how this applies to more recent cases. It considers the statutory provisions for adults who lack capacity, exceptions to the requirement to treat patients who lack capacity in their best interests, and consent involving children under the Children Act 1989. Gillick competence, a concept applied to determine whether a child may give consent, is also explained. Relevant case law, including Gillick, which gave rise to the concept, are cited where appropriate.


2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 459-462
Author(s):  
Olufunso B. Aribisala

SummaryThe Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a critical statute law for psychiatrists in England and Wales. Its best interests provision is fundamental to substitute decision-making for incapacitated adults. It prescribes a process of and gives structure to substitute decision-making. The participation of the incapacitated adult must be encouraged where practicable. In addition to this, ‘the best interests checklist’ must be applied in every case before a practitioner can arrive at a reasonable belief that the action or decision taken on behalf of an incapacitated adult is in his best interests. Most commentators have shown goodwill towards the workings of the Act and want it to succeed.


Author(s):  
Torremans Paul

This chapter examines mental incapacity as a special issue in private international law. Problems arise in cases where, for example, a mentally incapacitated person may be present in one country but habitually resident in another when measures of protection are needed; or this person may own property situated in a country different from his present location or habitual residence that needs to be dealt with. This chapter considers the jurisdiction of the English courts to order protective measures over a mentally disordered or incapacitated person or over his property, as well as the choice of law rules governing the protection of mentally incapacitated persons, prior to and under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It also discusses the recognition and enforcement of protective measures taken abroad, along with cases outside the realm of the Mental Capacity Act.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document