scholarly journals Transfer to hospital under the Mental Capacity Act 2005

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 465-467
Author(s):  
Clare Stephenson ◽  
Robert Baskind ◽  
Christopher Harris
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Fractured Neck Of Femur ◽  
Neck Of Femur ◽  
Physical Conditions ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Legal Grounds

SummaryThis paper presents the case of an elderly gentleman who sustained a fractured neck of femur following a fall at home but refused to go to hospital. His general practitioner determined that he lacked capacity but ambulance and police crews refused to escort him due to concerns regarding deprivation of liberty.The legal grounds for treating people who lack capacity in emergencies are discussed and the development of the common law into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is demonstrated. the Mental Health Act 1983 is inappropriate to treat primarily physical conditions, whereas deprivation of liberty cannot be authorised by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 without a means of challenging the lawfulness of the detention. In response, the government has produced Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which came into force in April 2009.

3. Consent

2021 ◽  
pp. 37-58
Author(s):  
Jo Samanta ◽  
Ash Samanta
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Information Disclosure ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
The Common ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

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.

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.

3. Consent

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Samanta ◽  
Ash Samanta
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Information Disclosure ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. 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. 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 court cases, including Gillick, which gave rise to the concept, are cited where appropriate.

scholarly journals The Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Mental Health Act 1983, and the Common Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (13) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Phil Fennell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Institutional Care ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Bodily Integrity ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
European Court ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

<p align="LEFT">This paper considers what has come to be known as the ‘interface’ between the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983. Until the 2005 Act comes into force in 2007, practitioners will have to be aware of the interface between powers to admit to institutional care and treat without consent under common law and those which exist under the Mental Health Act 1983.</p><p align="LEFT">In simple terms, the interface question is ‘When may the common law or, after 2007, the 2005 Act, be used to admit to institutional care and treat without consent, and when will use of the Mental Health Act be required?’ This article argues that there are two decisions of the European Court which need to be considered in determining how to bridge what has become the “Bournewood gap”: <em>HL v United Kingdom</em> and <em>Storck v Germany</em>. These will require that the State must provide effective supervisory mechanisms to ensure that mentally incapacitated people are not deprived of their liberty (Article 5) and do not have their right of bodily integrity interfered with (Article 8) without lawful authority.</p>

scholarly journals The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards – essential protection or bureaucratic monster?

2014 ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
Roger Hargreaves
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Total Absence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards ( DoLS), which came into force on the first of April 2009 as an amendment to the <em>Mental Capacity Act 2005</em>, are still commonly referred to as the “Bournewood safeguards,” but in fact the concern about the underlying issue long predates the final decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the <em>Bournewood</em> case. It goes back at least to 1983, when the new Mental Health Act brought in much greater protection for patients who were formally detained in hospital, and in particular for those who lacked the capacity to consent to treatment and who acquired additional safeguards under Part IV of that Act. However, this in turn highlighted the total absence of protection for those patients without capacity who were “<em>de facto</em> detained” under the common law.

scholarly journals Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in England: implementation costs

2011 ◽  
Vol 199 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ajit Shah ◽  
Mark Pennington ◽  
Chris Heginbotham ◽  
Cam Donaldson
Keyword(s):  
Average Cost ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Resource Utilisation ◽  
First Year ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Implementation Costs ◽  
The Government ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Utilisation Data

BackgroundThe Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), introduced into the Mental Capacity Act 2005, were fully implemented on 1 April 2009 in England and Wales. The government estimated 20 000 assessments for DoLS at a cost of £600 per assessment.AimsTo estimate the costs likely to be incurred with the implementation of DoLS in England.MethodThe cost of conducting a single DoLS assessment was estimated using resource-utilisation data ascertained from 37 professionals, secretarial staff and independent mental capacity advocates involved with DoLS assessments in six diverse local DoLS offices.ResultsThe estimated average cost of a single DoLS assessment was £1277.ConclusionsThe estimated average cost of a single DoLS assessment was significantly higher than the £600 estimated by the government. However, the allocated budget, based on 20 000 estimated DoLS assessments in the first year of its implementation, is likely to be adequate because a significantly lower number of assessments (only 5200) were conducted in the first 9 months after its implementation.

21. Capacity

2021 ◽  
pp. 311-319
Author(s):  
Paul S. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Age Of Majority ◽  
Reasonable Price

This chapter discusses the issue of capacity. The general rule is that contracts are valid but unenforceable on minors (persons under 18 years of age). However, they are enforceable against adults, and a minor can ratify a contract upon attaining the age of majority so that the contract is enforceable against both parties. At common law, mental incapacity is not by itself a reason to set aside a contract. But if the other party knows, or ought to know, of the mental incapacity, then the contract can be set aside. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 makes it clear that a person who lacks capacity must still pay a reasonable price for necessary goods and services.

scholarly journals Section 136: the ‘grey zone’ after the 24-h validity period lapses

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-64
Author(s):  
Yathooshan Ramesh ◽  
Mukesh Kripalani
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Legal Grounds

SUMMARYIf a Mental Health Act section 136 lapses at 24 h because no in-patient bed is available, the legal grounds to continue holding an individual in the place of safety are dubious. Duty of candour and a senior clinical review are essential. The use of common law and the Mental Capacity Act have limitations, the latter also raising a question about whether deprivation of liberty safeguards would also apply. Clarity of this dilemma is needed through legislation.

21. Capacity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Age Of Majority ◽  
Reasonable Price

This chapter discusses the issue of capacity. The general rule is that contracts are valid but unenforceable on minors (persons under 18 years of age). However, they are enforceable against adults, and a minor can ratify a contract upon attaining the age of majority so that the contract is enforceable against both parties. At common law, mental incapacity is not by itself a reason to set aside a contract. But if the other party knows, or ought to know, of the mental incapacity, then the contract can be set aside. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 makes it clear that a person who lacks capacity must still pay a reasonable price for necessary goods and services.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005: Relevance for the Surgeon

2009 ◽  
Vol 91 (5) ◽  
pp. 176-179
Author(s):  
SS Jameson ◽  
UK Amarasuriya ◽  
H Vint ◽  
MR Reed
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Surgical Team ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

Patients who lack the capacity to make decisions regarding surgical treatment are complex to manage. In the past, under common law in England and Wales, these patients underwent emergency surgery if in the patient's 'best interests,' as decided by the surgical team. Surgeons in England and Wales now need to understand the changes introduced in October 2007 by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document