Search results for ‘Subject term:"mental capacity"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Capacity to consent to sexual relations and the Mental Capacity Act 2005
- Author:
- BUTLER-COLE Victoria
- Journal article citation:
- Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, 11(2), 2017, pp.40-46.
- Publisher:
- Emerald
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to outline the current state of the Court of Protection case law on capacity to consent to sexual relations and identifies a number of difficulties with the present position. Design/methodology/approach: This paper reviews and summarises the current case law. Findings: This paper identifies problems arising with the court’s approach to assessing capacity to consent to sexual relations, in particular the problems caused by treating decisions about sexual relations as generic, but decisions about contact with other people as specific. Originality/value: This paper is a comprehensive summary of the current state of the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in this sensitive area. (Publisher abstract)
Care at home: Article 8 and incapacitated adults
- Authors:
- BUTLER-COLE Victoria, GROGAN Rose
- Journal article citation:
- Social Care and Neurodisability, 3(4), 2012, pp.179-185.
- Publisher:
- Emerald
There has been a move towards social inclusion for disabled adults, with a focus on independent living. At the same time, it has been argued that there should be an assumption that incapacitated adults are best cared for by their families. This paper reviews recent cases in the Court of Protection on the issue of article 8 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) right to respect for family life to explore whether it requires a starting point that it is in an incapacitated adult's best interests to be cared from at home. In this context, it examines the role of article 19 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in the article 8 and best interests analysis carried out by the court under s.4 Mental Capacity Act 2005. It finds that the Court of Protection has made it clear that talking in terms of presumptions is unhelpful when it comes to the s.4 MCA 2005 checklist. The broad terms of s.4 require that all relevant circumstances are taken into account which would include any potential infringement of article 8 ECHR. The article identifies an argument that could be used by campaigners and practitioners who advocate for the right for disabled persons to be cared for at home. However, it notes the argument's limitations with respect to incapacitated adults and the application of s.4 Mental Capacity Act 2005.