Book contents
- Mental Capacity Legislation
- Mental Capacity Legislation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Editors’ Note
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 The Assessment of Mental Capacity
- Chapter 3 Best Interests
- Chapter 4 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Past, Present and Future
- Chapter 5A Mental Capacity Act Application: Hospital Settings
- Chapter 5B Mental Capacity Act Application: Social Care Settings
- Chapter 6 Mental Capacity and End of Life Decision-Making
- Chapter 7 Clinical Ambiguities in the Assessment of Capacity
- Index
- References
Chapter 3 - Best Interests
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 June 2019
Book contents
- Mental Capacity Legislation
- Mental Capacity Legislation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Editors’ Note
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 The Assessment of Mental Capacity
- Chapter 3 Best Interests
- Chapter 4 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Past, Present and Future
- Chapter 5A Mental Capacity Act Application: Hospital Settings
- Chapter 5B Mental Capacity Act Application: Social Care Settings
- Chapter 6 Mental Capacity and End of Life Decision-Making
- Chapter 7 Clinical Ambiguities in the Assessment of Capacity
- Index
- References
Summary
At the heart of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) lies ‘best interests’. As we have seen, one of the key principles of the Act is that, if someone lacks capacity, any decision made on the person’s behalf must be in his or her best interests.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Mental Capacity LegislationPrinciples and Practice, pp. 34 - 55Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Department of Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005, Code of Practice, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Emmett, C., Poole, M., Bond, J. & Hughes, J. C. (2014) A Relative Safeguard? The informal roles that families and carers play when patients with dementia are discharged from hospital into care in England and Wales. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 28(3), 302–320.Google Scholar
General Medical Council (GMC) (2002) Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments: Good Practice in Decision-Making. London: GMC.Google Scholar
General Medical Council (GMC) (2010) Treatment and Care Towards the End of Life: Good Practice in Decision Making. London: GMC. www.gmc-uk.org/index.asp.Google Scholar
House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (2014) Mental Capacity Act 2005: Post-Legislative Scrutiny (Report of Session 2013–14). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. C. (2001) Views of the person with dementia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27, 86–91.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. C. (2007) Ethical issues and health care for older people. In: Principles of Health Care Ethics (2nd edn.) (eds. Ashcroft, R. E., Dawson, A., Draper, H. & McMillan, J. R.), pp. 469–474. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. C. & Baldwin, C. (2006) Ethical Issues in Dementia Care: Making Difficult Decisions. Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. C., Hope, T., Reader, S. & Rice, D. (2002) Dementia and ethics: The views of informal carers. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95, 242–246.Google Scholar
John, S. D. (2007) Ordinary and extraordinary means. In: Principles of Health Care Ethics (2nd edn.) (eds. Ashcroft, R. E., Dawson, A., Draper, H. and McMillan, J. R.), pp. 269–272. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Law Commission (2017) Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty (Law Com 372), London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2009) Dementia: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
Ruck-Keene, A. & Auckland, C. (2015) More presumptions please? Wishes, feelings and best interests decision-making. Elder Law Journal, 293–301.Google Scholar
Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) (2005) The Mental Capacity Act 2005 Explained. SPUC.Google Scholar
Takala, T. (2007) Acts and omissions. In: Principles of Health Care Ethics (2nd edn.) (eds. Ashcroft, R. E., Dawson, A., Draper, H. and McMillan, J. R.), pp. 273–276. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Uniacke, S. (2007) The doctrine of double effect. In: Principles of Health Care Ethics (2nd edn.) (eds. Ashcroft, R. E., Dawson, A., Draper, H. and McMillan, J. R.), pp. 263–268. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
The United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 13 December 2006, entered into force 3 May 2008) 2515 UNTS 3.Google Scholar
van der Steen, J. T., Ooms, M. E., Mehr, D. R., van der Wal, W. G. & Ribbe, M. W. (2002) Severe dementia and adverse outcomes of nursing home-acquired pneumonia: Evidence for mediation by functional and pathophysiological decline. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50, 439–448.Google Scholar
Case law
Burke, R (on the application of) v. General Medical Council & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1003.Google Scholar
R (on the Application of Stevens) v. Plymouth City Council & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 388.Google Scholar
Re AK (Gift Application) [2014] EWHC B11 (COP).Google Scholar