scholarly journals The concept of objection under the DOLS regime

Author(s):  
Matthew McKillop ◽  
John Dawson ◽  
George Szmukler

<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>

Author(s):  
Jo Beswick ◽  
Michael Gunn

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.


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.


Author(s):  
Charles Foster

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Finch

John Finch, a legal member of the Mental Health Act Commission for England and Wales from its creation by statute in 1983 until 1991, takes a fresh look at the uncomfortable history of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and asks whether the Act has served any useful purpose.


2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 454-460
Author(s):  
Sarah Huline-Dickens

SummaryThis article reviews the recent changes in the law in England and Wales relating to consent to treatment for young people, in particular the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the 2007 amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983. Using a fictitious case study, it offers a structured approach to the application of these new items of legislation that could be useful to trainers and their trainees.


2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER HERISSONE-KELLY

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 came into force in England and Wales in 2007. Its primary purpose is to provide “a statutory framework to empower and protect people who may lack capacity to make some decisions for themselves.” Examples of such people are those with dementia, learning disabilities, mental health problems, and so on. The Act also gives those who currently have capacity a legal framework within which they can make arrangements for a time when they may come to lack it. Toward this end, it allows for them to make advance decisions (in effect, refusals of consent to certain forms of treatment) or to appoint proxy decision makers with lasting powers of attorney.


2006 ◽  
Vol 188 (6) ◽  
pp. 504-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dawson ◽  
George Szmukler

SummaryThe enactment of a single legislative scheme governing nonconsensual treatment of both ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ illnesses, based on incapacity principles, has been mooted in recent law reform debates in the UK. We propose a framework for such legislation and consider in more detail the provisions it should contain. The design of legislation that combines the strengths of both incapacity and civil commitment schemes can be readily imagined, based on the criteria for intervention in England and Wales found in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Such legislation would reduce unjustified legal discrimination against mentally disordered persons and apply consistent ethical principles across medical law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (22) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Beth Ranjit

<p>In England and Wales, involuntary admissions for assessment or treatment in mental health wards are based on the legal framework of the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended in 2007) or the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards introduced in 2007. But what is the "least restrictive" approach and are we truly safeguarding in-patients’ liberty by curbing use of the Mental Health Act in particular groups?</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document