Search results

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the common and statutory law governing children's capacity or competence to consent to and to refuse medical treatment is unsatisfactory and to suggest solutions.

Critical legal analysis of the law on assessing minors’ decision-making capacity in relation to legal recognition of their consent to and refusal of medical treatment.

Without legal mechanisms which protect both children and their rights, all children and young people are effectively disabled from exercising age and capacity-related autonomy and participation in decisions affecting their lives. Yet in English law, inconsistencies between legal and clinical measures of decision-making capacity, situations where compulsory medical or mental health treatment is lawful, and tensions between rights and duties associated with human rights, autonomy, best interests and protections for the vulnerable create difficulties for clinicians, lawyers and patients.

As the paper acknowledges in its recommendations, the views of stakeholders are needed to enrich and inform legal reforms in this area.

The paper makes suggestions to amend the law and clinical practice which are original and far reaching. The paper suggests that in order to observe children's rights while protecting them appropriately, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards should be applied to minors. The paper recommends the establishment of Mental Capacity Tribunals, similar in nature and purpose to Mental Health Tribunals, to provide legal safeguards and mechanisms to foster the supported decision-making envisaged in recent United Nations Conventions.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the readership to the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Discussion of the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the DoLS.

These are as yet unknown as the consultation period is ongoing – it is planned that a future paper will examine the findings and recommendations from the consultation process.

There has been criticism of the DoLS since their introduction in 2009. A new scheme provides the opportunity to respond to some of the criticisms and to develop more appropriate processes. The paper invites readers to take part in the consultation process and to respond to the proposals that have been developed.

A new and more appropriate scheme would be beneficial for service users and families/caregivers.

This is the first opportunity for a revision to the DoLS scheme and introduction of the proposed scheme and the consultation process to the readership is highly appropriate and valuable to the Journal.

The purpose of this paper is to specifically analyse whether parents should have the legal authority to authorise a deprivation of liberty for children with a learning disability. As a result of parental consent being recognised as holding legal authority, these children have their right to liberty under Article 5 engaged. It will be argued that the courts’ failure to support this view stems from the confusing concept of the “zone of parental control”.

A doctrinal methodology is used, examining domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with analysis of relevant literature.

Decisions regarding deprivation of liberty in children under the age of 16 should undoubtedly include parental consent. The concern expressed here is the sovereignty of parental consent over all else. The law is confusing. In one respect rights under the ECHR are universal. However, both UK and European courts have accepted the premise that it is entirely within the zone of parental control to effectively deprive a child of liberty without procedural or judicial review. Furthermore, there are wider potential issues for children being considered to be deprived of liberty following Cheshire West.

The paper is a discussion piece that is critical of the existing law and uses the literature and original opinions to recommend an alternative approach.

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.

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.

This article aims to outline simple measures which, by making better use of existing legislation and provision, could change the day‐to‐day experience of individuals with learning disabilities currently in long stay hospitals, whilst phased local provision is being sourced for them. The proposals will also promote the safety and dignity of the minority of patients who ultimately cannot be settled successfully within their own community. Further, these measures may help ensure that any individual undergoing assessment and treatment at such a unit, for whatever period, and for whatever reason, will receive care in an environment where abuse cannot go unnoticed or unchecked.

The paper provides a review of the potential to use current legislation and provision to better effect, highlighted by case studies.

Commissioners contracting with providers could include measures to promote the safety and protection of adults with learning disabilities from abuse at little or no cost to the commissioning authority.

This is an original piece of work – developed from a short opinion/comment piece (750 words) originally prepared for the benefit of mental health lawyers in the Law Society Gazette. It is primarily of value, however, to social workers, care providers, adult safeguarding teams, advocacy services and commissioners of services.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was fully implemented in October 2007 within England and Wales as a framework for making decisions about incapacitated persons' care and treatment generally not amounting to a deprivation of their liberty (although such could be authorised under its powers by the new Court of Protection). From a planned date of April 2009, the MCA is to be enlarged by the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007 (MHA 2007) to encompass deprivation of liberty, with the addition of a new framework of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). The MHA 2007 also revised significant aspects of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), which were implemented in November 2008. The interface between the MCA, as amended to include DOLS, and the revised MHA is complex and potentially ambiguous. This paper describes in detail some issues that may arise at the interface of the two acts, and seeks to inform professionals involved in the use of these legal frameworks of the resulting complexity.