Best interests, patient participation and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Law Faculty, University College Cork.
Medical Law Review (Impact Factor: 0.73). 01/2009; 17(1):1-29. DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwn021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Medical Law Review following peer review. This article analyses the best interests standard as applied in the context of healthcare decisions in light of the participative elements introduced by the Mental Capacity Act (EW). It begins with a brief consideration of the best interests standard as it developed at common law. The article shows that, while the courts gradually developed a more systematic approach to best interests, judges remained largely resistant to facilitating participation by patients lacking capacity. The article examines the changes brought about by the MCA in this regard. It explores the policy basis for this aspect of the MCA and shows why the participative model represents the most appropriate response to decision-making for people lacking mental capacity. The article argues that notwithstanding the attractions of the MCA’s participative framework from a policy perspective, this approach to best interests gives rise to important practical and conceptual questions, which the article then explores. The article examines the difficulties in delivering genuine participation at a practical level and identifies the risk that patient participation will become a tokenistic endeavour.

  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper explores the ‘right to autonomy’ for people with dementia. The provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sought to allow more decisions to be made by those who are situated at the margins of capacity. This paper explores conceptual approaches to autonomy to highlight the limitations of contemporary regulation and the shortcomings of legal understandings of autonomy. Discourse analysis is used to analyse judicial language in a key recent case about where a person with dementia should live. It is argued that how the MCA approach has been operationalised by the courts does little to facilitate decision making for people with dementia. Possibilities for autonomy at the margins of capacity may be closed down through the discursive strategies used to determine disputes about the best interests of people with dementia. I argue that relational autonomy should be revised to include insights from person-centred care in order to empower decision making for people with dementia, and that judicial decision-makers should engage with the relationality of autonomy at the margins of capacity.
    Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 12/2012; 34(4). DOI:10.1080/09649069.2012.755031
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the number of people being cared for by relatives and friends rises, it is vitally important to examine whether legal frameworks surrounding care and treatment sufficiently account for the realities of informal caring. This paper undertakes such an analysis through the lens of care ethics, arguing that relational and contextual aspects of caring ought to be brought further to the fore. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 forms the central focus of criticism and it is suggested that the legislation and case law surrounding best interests decisions fails to heed the interdependence which permeates informal caring. In contrast to earlier care theories, however, the importance of retaining a focus on the rights and capabilities of individuals within the web of caring relationships is emphasised.
    Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 04/2014; 36(2). DOI:10.1080/09649069.2014.916081


Available from