Summary of the Law Commission's final report into the review of the Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which considered how the law should protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care or treatment and lack the capacity to consent to this. The review proposes that the DoLS should be replaced by a new scheme, the Liberty Protection Safeguards. This summary provides an overview of the recommendations and the case for reform. It outlines how the new system would operate, with a detailed explanation of some of the key aspects of the new scheme, including its scope, who they would apply to, and conditions for authorisation.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Summary of the Law Commission's final report into the review of the Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which considered how the law should protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care or treatment and lack the capacity to consent to this. The review proposes that the DoLS should be replaced by a new scheme, the Liberty Protection Safeguards. This summary provides an overview of the recommendations and the case for reform. It outlines how the new system would operate, with a detailed explanation of some of the key aspects of the new scheme, including its scope, who they would apply to, and conditions for authorisation.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, mental capacity, Mental Capacity Act 2005, dementia, learning disabilities, vulnerable adults;
Journal of Adult Protection, 19(4), 2017, pp.220-227.
Publisher:
Emerald
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the Law Commission’s final report and recommendations on the reform of the deprivation of liberty safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act.
Design/methodology/approach: Summary
Findings: The proposals contained in the Law Commision Review and proposals for law reform are outlined.
(Publisher abstract)
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the Law Commission’s final report and recommendations on the reform of the deprivation of liberty safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act.
Design/methodology/approach: Summary
Findings: The proposals contained in the Law Commision Review and proposals for law reform are outlined.
(Publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
mental capacity, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, law, older people, mental health, safeguarding adults, vulnerable adults, learning disabilities;
Final report from the Law Commission's review of the Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which considered how the law should protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care or treatment and lack the capacity to consent. The review found that DoLS were overly technical and legalistic, often failed to achieve any positive outcomes for the person concerned or their family, and could not deal with the increased numbers of people considered to be deprived of their liberty following the Cheshire West ruling. The report provides recommendations for the reform of the legal framework and proposes that the DoLS should be replaced by a new scheme, the Liberty Protection Safeguards. The proposed scheme would cover a broader group of people, including any setting that might give rise to a deprivation of liberty and would also cover 16 and 17-year-olds. A draft Bill attached to the report provides details of the new scheme. The draft Bill also includes amendments to other parts of the Mental Capacity Act to provide increased protection for people whose rights to respect for their private and family life and their home, whether or not they risk being deprived of their liberty. The Law Commission also recommended that the Liberty Protection Safeguards should be accompanied by the publication of a new Code of Practice covering all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act. An impact assessment and a summary of the report are published alongside the final report.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Final report from the Law Commission's review of the Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which considered how the law should protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care or treatment and lack the capacity to consent. The review found that DoLS were overly technical and legalistic, often failed to achieve any positive outcomes for the person concerned or their family, and could not deal with the increased numbers of people considered to be deprived of their liberty following the Cheshire West ruling. The report provides recommendations for the reform of the legal framework and proposes that the DoLS should be replaced by a new scheme, the Liberty Protection Safeguards. The proposed scheme would cover a broader group of people, including any setting that might give rise to a deprivation of liberty and would also cover 16 and 17-year-olds. A draft Bill attached to the report provides details of the new scheme. The draft Bill also includes amendments to other parts of the Mental Capacity Act to provide increased protection for people whose rights to respect for their private and family life and their home, whether or not they risk being deprived of their liberty. The Law Commission also recommended that the Liberty Protection Safeguards should be accompanied by the publication of a new Code of Practice covering all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act. An impact assessment and a summary of the report are published alongside the final report.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, mental capacity, assessment, vulnerable adults, learning disabilities, dementia, evaluation;
Journal of Adult Protection, 17(1), 2015, pp.41-50.
Publisher:
Emerald
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to give a brief background to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and studies which factors Best Interests Assessors consider when making a judgement on Deprivation of Liberty. It examines some of the reasons why professionals may be under-using DoLS, including lack of knowledge, complex processes and paperwork, and the pejorative nature of the word "deprivation", and looks at a possible way forward.
Design/methodology/approach: The paper looks at the evidence to the House of Commons and House of Lords Committees on the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act, as well as previous and current research papers. It examines the nuances of difference between restriction and deprivation, and the cumulative impact of several restrictions, which may, in fact, amount to a deprivation, illustrated by case studies from the author's own practice.
Findings: It makes the case that health and social care professionals should err on the side of caution, by making precautionary DoLS applications, arguing that MCA DoLS is a forerunner of good practice, and that good care planning allied to judicious application of the MCA leads to better, more robust and more defensible decision making.
Originality/value: And it points the way to a possible future, citing the recommendations of the Select Committee on the MCA for a clearer link between DoLS and the principles underpinning the MCA, and for simplifying and clarifying the legislative provisions and the associated paperwork.
(Publisher abstract)
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to give a brief background to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and studies which factors Best Interests Assessors consider when making a judgement on Deprivation of Liberty. It examines some of the reasons why professionals may be under-using DoLS, including lack of knowledge, complex processes and paperwork, and the pejorative nature of the word "deprivation", and looks at a possible way forward.
Design/methodology/approach: The paper looks at the evidence to the House of Commons and House of Lords Committees on the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act, as well as previous and current research papers. It examines the nuances of difference between restriction and deprivation, and the cumulative impact of several restrictions, which may, in fact, amount to a deprivation, illustrated by case studies from the author's own practice.
Findings: It makes the case that health and social care professionals should err on the side of caution, by making precautionary DoLS applications, arguing that MCA DoLS is a forerunner of good practice, and that good care planning allied to judicious application of the MCA leads to better, more robust and more defensible decision making.
Originality/value: And it points the way to a possible future, citing the recommendations of the Select Committee on the MCA for a clearer link between DoLS and the principles underpinning the MCA, and for simplifying and clarifying the legislative provisions and the associated paperwork.
(Publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, mental health law, decision making, learning disabilities, mental health, safeguarding adults, vulnerable adults, nursing, Best Interests Assessors;
GREAT BRITAIN. Parliament. House of Lords. Committee on the Mental Health Act 2005
Publisher:
Stationery Office
Publication year:
2014
Pagination:
143
Place of publication:
London
The Committee’s key finding in this evidence-led inquiry is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is not widely implemented. To address this, the Committee recommends that responsibility for implementing the Act be given to an independent body. The Committee’s second key finding is that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are not fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that they be replaced with new provisions. This report considers: whether the Act is working as intended in respect of the Act’s five core principles; how to address poor implementation of the Act; advocacy and advance planning; whether the Court of Protection is appropriate (or should there be a Mental Capacity Tribunal instead); and criminal law provisions under Section 44 of the Act. It summarises and refers to cases of unlawful detention under the Act (Steven Neary), and the deprivation of liberty of an autistic man with a profound learning disability, HL at Bournewood Hospital for 32 years. It includes as a good practice example, the work by Jim Blair, a learning disability nurse consultant who explained adjustments made for effective treatment and outcomes for adults with learning disabilities appropriate to their needs. The Committee makes recommendations to Government to: work with regulators and professional bodies to ensure the Act is given a higher profile in training, standard setting and inspections; increase staff resources at the Court of Protection to speed up handling of non-controversial cases; and reconsider the provision of non-means tested legal aid to those who lack capacity, especially in cases of deprivation of liberty. Local authorities should use their discretionary powers to appoint Independent Mental Capacity Advocates more widely than is currently the case. The Government should act on the poor levels of awareness and understanding of Lasting Powers of Attorney and advance decisions to refuse treatment among professionals in the health and social care sectors. The Government should also review the criminal law provision for ill-treatment or neglect of a person lacking capacity, to ensure that the Act is fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that the House of Lords seek an update from the Government twelve months from now to find out what they have done in response to their key recommendations. An easy read version is also available.
(Edited publisher abstract)
The Committee’s key finding in this evidence-led inquiry is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is not widely implemented. To address this, the Committee recommends that responsibility for implementing the Act be given to an independent body. The Committee’s second key finding is that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are not fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that they be replaced with new provisions. This report considers: whether the Act is working as intended in respect of the Act’s five core principles; how to address poor implementation of the Act; advocacy and advance planning; whether the Court of Protection is appropriate (or should there be a Mental Capacity Tribunal instead); and criminal law provisions under Section 44 of the Act. It summarises and refers to cases of unlawful detention under the Act (Steven Neary), and the deprivation of liberty of an autistic man with a profound learning disability, HL at Bournewood Hospital for 32 years. It includes as a good practice example, the work by Jim Blair, a learning disability nurse consultant who explained adjustments made for effective treatment and outcomes for adults with learning disabilities appropriate to their needs. The Committee makes recommendations to Government to: work with regulators and professional bodies to ensure the Act is given a higher profile in training, standard setting and inspections; increase staff resources at the Court of Protection to speed up handling of non-controversial cases; and reconsider the provision of non-means tested legal aid to those who lack capacity, especially in cases of deprivation of liberty. Local authorities should use their discretionary powers to appoint Independent Mental Capacity Advocates more widely than is currently the case. The Government should act on the poor levels of awareness and understanding of Lasting Powers of Attorney and advance decisions to refuse treatment among professionals in the health and social care sectors. The Government should also review the criminal law provision for ill-treatment or neglect of a person lacking capacity, to ensure that the Act is fit for purpose. The Committee recommends that the House of Lords seek an update from the Government twelve months from now to find out what they have done in response to their key recommendations. An easy read version is also available.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
mental capacity, vulnerable adults, learning disabilities, mental health problems, Court of Protection, advocacy, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, criminal law, Mental Capacity Act 2005;
Despite being in force for two years, recent cases have highlighted a lack of training and awareness in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This article discusses the difficulties in defining a deprivation of liberty, explores the implications of recent court rulings and identifies gaps in training provision for social work managers and staff.
Despite being in force for two years, recent cases have highlighted a lack of training and awareness in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This article discusses the difficulties in defining a deprivation of liberty, explores the implications of recent court rulings and identifies gaps in training provision for social work managers and staff.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, mental capacity, mental health law, physical restraint, supported living, training, vulnerable adults, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, good practice;
Advances in Mental Health and Learning Disabilities, 3(1), March 2009, pp.18-22.
Publisher:
Emerald
The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are due to be implemented imminently. This legislation serves as an extension of the Mental Capacity Act designed to close the ‘Bournewood Gap’ and is of particular relevance to learning disability services. This article discusses the DoLS from a legal, philosophical and ethical perspective.
The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are due to be implemented imminently. This legislation serves as an extension of the Mental Capacity Act designed to close the ‘Bournewood Gap’ and is of particular relevance to learning disability services. This article discusses the DoLS from a legal, philosophical and ethical perspective.
Subject terms:
human rights, learning disabilities, mental capacity, mental health law, vulnerable adults, safeguarding adults, compulsory detention, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, ethics;
Tizard Learning Disability Review, 15(1), January 2010, pp.51-55.
Publisher:
Emerald
In 1997, a man with severe learning disabilities and autistic traits was admitted to hospital informally. Following an application to the European Court of Human Rights, this was ruled to be in violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Until this judgement, people not subject to the MHA 1983 but lacking the capacity to consent for themselves and needing hospital admission in their own interests had been admitted informally; this had now been ruled to be not lawful. This legal loophole became known as the Bournewood Gap. The UK government subsequently closed the Bournewood Gap by introducing the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards into the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are a series of assessments that are undertaken by professionals when an adult is admitted to a hospital or care home and lacks the capacity to decide to be admitted themselves. They give legal safeguards to these vulnerable people that were previously missing. 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.
In 1997, a man with severe learning disabilities and autistic traits was admitted to hospital informally. Following an application to the European Court of Human Rights, this was ruled to be in violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Until this judgement, people not subject to the MHA 1983 but lacking the capacity to consent for themselves and needing hospital admission in their own interests had been admitted informally; this had now been ruled to be not lawful. This legal loophole became known as the Bournewood Gap. The UK government subsequently closed the Bournewood Gap by introducing the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards into the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are a series of assessments that are undertaken by professionals when an adult is admitted to a hospital or care home and lacks the capacity to decide to be admitted themselves. They give legal safeguards to these vulnerable people that were previously missing. 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.
Subject terms:
learning disabilities, mental capacity, mental health law, hospital admission, vulnerable adults, admission to care, safeguarding adults, assessment, decision making, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, Mental Capacity Act 2005;