Justifying and practising effective participation in the Court of Protection

An empirical study

Bibliographic Data

ID11449459
AuthorsChao Kong (0000-0002-0551-0689, School of Law Queen Mary University of London 335 Mile End Road London E1 4FQ England, corresponding author), CAMILLIA KONG, REBECCA STICKLER (Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research Birkbeck College, University of London 42 Store Street London WC1E 7DB England), PENNY COOPER (Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research Birkbeck College, University of London 42 Store Street London WC1E 7DB England), Matthew Watkins (0000-0003-2521-5393, School of Law and Politics Cardiff University Law Building, Museum Avenue Cardiff CF10 3AX Wales), Matthew Dunn (0000-0001-5349-5252, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore Level 11, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228 Singapore), Michael Dunn (0000-0001-7457-3344)
Year2022
Volume49
Issue4
Pages703-725
Publication date2022-12-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Law and Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0263-323X • E-ISSN: 1467-6478
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/jols.12398
OpenAlexW4311897201
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited1

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales (MCA), the participation of persons in making decisions that affect their lives is embedded within the legislation and has also been addressed directly in Court of Protection (CoP) rules and guidelines. Nonetheless, various studies and reports have indicated a potential gap between practice on the ground and the participatory aspirations of the MCA. This article presents an analysis of semi‐structured interviews with 56 legal professionals (lawyers and retired judges) specializing in mental capacity law to examine how they envisage the substantive meaning and function of the effective participation of individuals who are found to lack decision‐making capacity (P). The study reveals deeper legal and ethical justifications behind why P's participation matters and also suggests that interpersonal barriers, relating to communicating and engaging with P, can hinder its realization in practice

Affect (linguistics · Citizen journalism · Empirical research · Epistemology · Function (biology · Interpersonal communication · Legislation · Meaning (existential · Mental capacity · Political science · Psychotherapist · Public relations · Sociology · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Law · Psychology · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access