scholarly journals Lost Voices in Research: Exposing the Gaps in the Mental Capacity Act 2005

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 81-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Heywood ◽  
Hayley Ryan ◽  
Anne Killett ◽  
Peter Langdon ◽  
Yvonne Plenderleith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Chilling Effect ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Incapacitated Patients ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

Despite laudable intentions, since its inception, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 of England and Wales (MCA) has proved to be a controversial piece of legislation. The majority of legal scholarship has concentrated on the problems created by the Act in relation to the treatment of incapacitated patients. However, there is an additional and somewhat unexplored dimension to the MCA, that of research. We argue here that the research provisions of the MCA are poorly drafted and do not provide an appropriate balance between protection and empowerment. We also assert that contrasting obligations and expectations are placed on different parties in the approval process, which creates a blurred sense of responsibility and a potential chilling effect.

Legal Regulation of Treatment for Depression

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Series
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Over The Counter ◽  
Controlled Drugs ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Incapacitated Patients ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Over The Counter Medicines

This chapter reviews the legal regulation of treatment of depression as it exists in England and Wales, where medicinal products are regulated largely by the Medicines Act 1988 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Medicines Act divides medicinal products into pharmacy only medicines, which can only be purchased under the supervision of a pharmacist, over-the-counter medicines, and prescription only medicines. The Misuse of Drugs Act is concerned with controlled drugs. These are divided into three classes according to their perceived degree of harmfulness. This chapter considers treatment with valid consent and two pieces of legislation that govern people who are sufficiently ill and need to be admitted to hospital: the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). It also discusses treatment of mentally incapacitated patients and the issue of liberty regarding the admission of a compliant but incapacitated patient to hospital. Finally, it looks at three types of non-medical prescribing in England, issued by independent prescribers, supplementary prescribers, and community practitioners.

Best interests provisions in the UK Mental Capacity Act 2005

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 459-462
Author(s):  
Olufunso B. Aribisala
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Reasonable Belief ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
The Uk

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.

Is mental capacity in the eye of the beholder?

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 30-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Ruck Keene
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

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.

scholarly journals The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its potential impact on the use of restraint

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 124-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur O. Owino
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Time Section ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Care And Treatment ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

The staged implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (further referred to as the Act) began in April 2007 and was completed in October 2007. The Act provides a comprehensive statutory framework for making decisions for people in England and Wales, aged 16 years and over, who lack capacity to make a particular decision at a particular time. Section 5 of the Act codifies the common law doctrine of necessity and provides a defence to anyone who performs an act in connection with the care and treatment of another person – in that person's best interest – reasonably believed to lack capacity in that matter.

scholarly journals The concept of objection under the DOLS regime

2014 ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Matthew McKillop ◽  
John Dawson ◽  
George Szmukler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Mental Health Patient ◽  
Health Treatment ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Hospitalised Patient

<p>In England and Wales, there are now two regimes under which an adult can be deprived of liberty when receiving mental health treatment: the regime established by the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) authorisation regime established by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where both regimes might apply to a mentally disordered person in hospital for mental health treatment, a major dividing line between them is the ability of the patient to “object” to being a mental health patient or to being given mental health treatment. If such an objection occurs, a hospitalised patient is ineligible for the DOLS regime and only the MHA regime may be used to authorise the deprivation of their liberty.</p>

scholarly journals Understanding community care law in England and Wales

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 428-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Allen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Community Care ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Care Provision ◽  
Care Programme ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

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.

The law in England and Wales on mental health treatment in the community

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Beswick ◽  
Michael Gunn
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mentally Disordered Offender ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

This chapter examines the legal framework for the treatment of the mentally disordered offender in the community in England and Wales. It examines both some of the ideological questions underlying the care of this group and the legal mechanisms within which treatment can be provided. The chapter begins by examining the principle, endorsed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that voluntary treatment will usually be the norm, regardless of setting. It then considers exceptions to these norm situations where legally mandated treatment in the community is permitted. In England and Wales, most of these exceptions are to be found in three pieces of legislation: the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended in 2007 to include community treatment orders; the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with its associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS); and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Depression and Civil Liability

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Foster
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Depressed Person ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

This chapter discusses the law in England and Wales relating to civil liability where people with depression are parties to litigation. It begins by considering how depression can truncate one’s capacity to conduct litigation. Where it does, and the person consequently ‘lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings’, litigation either for or against the depressed person has to be conducted through a ‘litigation friend’. No step in the litigation can occur unless a litigation friend has been appointed. In the Civil Procedure Rules, the term ‘lacks capacity’ is defined by reference to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The chapter also examines the relevance of the mental health of parties to the litigation in a wide variety of claims, along with litigation against depressed people or in relation to damage caused by depressed people.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document