The Library

Best interests, dementia and the Mental Capacity Act (2005)

Tools

Hope, R. A., Slowther, Anne and Eccles, J.. (2009) Best interests, dementia and the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol.35 (No.12). pp. 733-738. ISSN 0306-6800

PDF
WRAP_Slowther_best-interests.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (198Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.030783

Abstract

The Mental Capacity Act (2005) is an impressive piece of
legislation that deserves serious ethical attention, but
much of the commentary on the Act has focussed on its
legal and practical implications rather than the underlying
ethical concepts. This paper examines the approach that
the Act takes to best interests. The Act does not provide
an account of the underlying concept of best interests.
Instead it lists factors that must be considered in
determining best interests, and the Code of Practice to
the Act states that this list is incomplete. This paper
argues that this general approach is correct, contrary to
some accounts of best interests. The checklist includes
items that are unhelpful. Furthermore, neither the Act nor
its Code of Practice provides sufficient guidance to carers
faced with difficult decisions concerning best interests.
This paper suggests ways in which the checklist can be
developed and discusses cases that could be used in an
updated Code of Practice.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Psychiatric ethics, Dementia -- Moral and ethical aspects, Mental Capacity Act 2005
Journal or Publication Title:	Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher:	BMJ Group
ISSN:	0306-6800
Official Date:	December 2009
Volume:	Vol.35
Number:	No.12
Number of Pages:	6
Page Range:	pp. 733-738
Identification Number:	10.1136/jme.2009.030783
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
References:	1. Dostoevsky F. Notes from underground. Translated by J Coulson. London: Penguin Books 1972 (first published in 1864). 2. Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI). Mental Capacity Act 2005. http:// www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050009_en_1 (accessed 9 April 2009). 3. Department for Constitutional Affairs. Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of practice. London: The Stationery Office, 2007. 4. Degrazia D. Value theory and the best interests standard. Bioethics 1995;9:50–61. 5. McCubbin M, Weisstub D. Toward a pure best interests model of proxy decision making for incompetent psychiatric patients. Intl J Law Psychiatry 1998;21:1–30. 6. Berghmans R. Ethical hazards of substituted judgment test in decision making concerning the end of life of dementia patients. Intl J Geriatr Psychiatry 1997;12:283–7. 7. Dworkin R. Autonomy and the demented self. The Millbank Quarterly 1986;64:4–16. 8. Treloar A. Advance directives: limitations upon their applicability in elderly care. Intl J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999;14:1039–43. 9. Berghmans R. Advance directives and dementia. Ann NY Acad Sci 2000;913:105–10. 10. Biegler P, Stewart C, Savulescu J, et al. Determining the validity of advance directives. Med J Aust 2000;172:545–8. 11. Widdershoven G, Berghmans R. Advance directives in psychiatric care: a narrative approach. J Med Ethics 2001;27:92–7. 12. Widdershoven G, Berghmans R. Advance directives in dementia care: from instructions to instruments. Patient Educ Counsel 2001;44:179–86. 13. Fagerlin A, Schnieder C. Enough: the failure of the living will. Hastings Center Rep 2004;34:30–42. 14. Buchanan A, Brock D. Deciding for others: the ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 15. Savulescu J, Dickenson D. The time frame of preferences, dispositions, and the validity of advance directives for the mentally ill. Philos, Psychiatry, Philos 1998;5:225–46. 16. Firlik A. Margo’s logo. JAMA 1991;265:201. 17. Dworkin R. Life’s dominion: an argument about abortion and euthanasia. London: HarperCollins, 1993. 18. Dresser R. Dworkin on dementia: elegant theory, questionable policy. Hastings Center Rep 1995;25:32–8. 19. Holm S. Autonomy, authenticity, or best interests: everyday decision-making and persons with dementia. Med, Health Care Philos 2001;4:153–9. 20. Jaworska A. Respecting the margins of agency: Alzheimer’s patients and the capacity to value. Philos Public Aff 1999;28:105–38. 21. Hughes J. Views of the person with dementia. J Med Ethics 2001;27:86–91. 22. Dresser R, Whitehouse P. The incompetent patient on the slippery slope. Hastings Center Rep 1994;24:6–12. 23. Kopelman L. The best interests standard for incompetent or incapacitated persons of all ages. J Law, Med Ethics 2007;35:187–96. 24. Kuhse H. Some reflections on the problem of advance directives, personhood, and personal identity. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1999;9:347–64. 25. Hope T. Advance directives. J Med Ethics 1996;22:67–8.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/3136