Search results

The purpose of this paper is to clarify: the law on capacity to consent to sex; ethical and legal factors in assessing decision‐making capacity of those on the autism (ASD) and neurodiverse (ND) spectrums; and the legal obligations to promote sexual health devolving to local authorities from April 2013. We make proposals to ensure socio‐sexual competence by providing appropriate sex and relationship education (SRE).

Critical legal analysis of case law and legislation on the capacity of the vulnerable to consent to sex, in the context of those diagnosed on the autism and neurodiverse spectrums.

Consent to sex cannot be regarded as informed, autonomous, valid and lawful without socio‐sexual competence. Sex and relationships education should be provided to ensure socio‐sexual competence, in keeping with international conventions and national laws and policies.

There is an urgent need for research into the needs and experiences of people with ASD/ND and their families/carers with regard to the efficacy and tailoring of SRE strategies. This research should feed into SRE family intervention programmes (SREFIPs), developed in partnership with people with ASD/ND, their families/carers and professionals.

This article seeks to resolve many of the existing legal uncertainties surrounding the capacity to consent to sex and to propose novel solutions to ensure the socio‐sexual competence of those diagnosed on the ASD or ND spectrums in relation to their rights to sexual expression.

Cruelty has often been understood as the result of incurable bad character by those able to distinguish right from wrong. Recent research suggests a way of thinking about it as a form of disability in which people are unable to learn empathy, cognitive social skills and associated behaviour, which qualifies it as a form of learning disability. It is suggested that accepting this classification opens up the possibility that selected interventions might be successful in enabling people to understand, practise and appreciate affiliative behaviour.

Following a case in the 1990s when a learning‐disabled man was admitted to hospital unlawfully, the UK government has introduced the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards into the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This article discusses the case that was the background to the legislation, explores the safeguards, and discusses the impact on services and individuals in the UK.

The first autism‐specific piece of legislation in England and Wales, the Autism Bill, put forward by Cheryl Gillan as a private member's bill, has now gone forward to House of Commons committee stage, after attracting almost universal support among MPs, charities and the media. It seeks to redress the widespread lack of local authority provision for the needs of people with autism (defined in the Bill as including all autism spectrum disorders, including Asperger's Syndrome): children, adults (defined as those over 18) and their families. Currently, despite legislative and policy provision for the disabled, many autism spectrum disorder (ASD) children are without appropriate education or assistance before, during and after the transition to adulthood. At least a third of adults with ASD were estimated in the National Autistic Society's report I Exist to be suffering from serious mental health difficulties as a result of lack of support, while families and carers of adults with ASD have been found to be frequently unable to obtain assistance (Rosenblatt, 2008). This article will provide details of the Bill before considering its implications for ASD children, adults and their families.

The purpose of this paper is to consider oxytocin as a treatment for children diagnosed with callous unemotional [CU] traits, emotion regulation and whether moral disability is a meaningful category.

The paper discusses the relationship between psychiatric diagnoses, moral opprobrium and disability in relation to emotion regulation and diagnoses of callous unemotional conduct disorder (CUCD) and psychopathy, together with current research on oxytocin in humans.

Diagnoses of callous unemotional traits and psychopathy are problematic as a result of inbuilt moral opprobrium, while treating CUCD with oxytocin to promote prosociality through mandating a moral feeling brain oversimplifies how this neuropeptide operates in humans.

Oxytocin is currently under trial as a treatment for behavioural variant fronto‐temporal dementia, where patients display symptoms similar to those diagnosed with CUCD. As genetic, environmental and ethnic factors affect oxytocin's effects in humans, caution is warranted before supporting its use to treat CUCD. Moreover, such use may represent a reductionist technofix compared with addressing socioeconomic factors promoting the manifestation of CU traits as an adaptation.

The purpose of this paper is to apply critical legal analysis to laws, policies and reforms focused on special educational needs (SEN) and equality in England and to suggest a Neurodiversity spectrum statement.

The paper reviews current legal and policy initiatives in SEN, together with recent reforms in equality law.

While past and current policies may have laudable aims, tensions such as a lack of integration of education, health and social services have had prejudicial outcomes for children with SEN, their families/carers, and the professionals involved.

Legal reforms promise to remedy some problems, but must be underpinned by adequate resourcing, appeal procedures, and remedies which foster the enforcement of legal duties. Some resources for families with children with SEN are noted.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the clinical implications of the case of AM and the ruling that the Mental Health Act no longer has primacy over other legislation in certain treatment situations.

Critical case analysis and discussion.

The Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards could be used more widely, and in preference to the Mental Health Act, but this may cause problems to clinicians and other decision makers such as Mental Health Tribunals.

This case and its findings have not been widely discussed in academic or clinical practice literature.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and examine the implications of holding mental health tribunals in public.

The paper discusses the functioning of tribunals, compares tribunals with other legal processes in the UK and elsewhere, and reviews the legal reasoning for holding tribunal hearings in public.

The first tribunal hearing has already been held in public and another public hearing is agreed. Public hearings should allow for greater transparency and scrutiny than has thus far been possible, and may change the behaviour of attendees.

Public tribunal hearings have not yet been widely discussed in the academic literature, yet are expected to have implications for all involved.