Advance decisions and the Mental Capacity Act

Samantha Halliday

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article considers the requirements set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for valid advance decisions. The Act recognizes that an adult with capacity may refuse treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, in advance of losing capacity. If that advance decision is valid and applicable, it will bind health-care professionals, taking effect as if the patient had contemporaneously refused the treatment. However, in cases where the advance decision does not relate to treatment for a progressive disease, it will be extremely difficult for the patient to meet the dual specificity requirement - specifying the treatment to be refused and the circumstances in which that refusal should operate. Moreover, while a patient may explicitly revoke an advance decision while she retains the capacity to do so, the continuing validity of an advance decision may be called into question by the patient implicitly revoking her advance refusal or by a change of circumstance. This article concludes that the key to enabling patients to exercise precedent autonomy will be full and frank discussion of the scope and intentions underlying advance decisions between patients and their health-care professionals.
LanguageEnglish
Pages697-699
Number of pages3
JournalBritish Journal of Nursing
Volume18
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

act
health care
Delivery of Health Care
Therapeutics
autonomy
Exercise
Disease

Cite this

Halliday, Samantha. / Advance decisions and the Mental Capacity Act. In: British Journal of Nursing. 2009 ; Vol. 18, No. 11. pp. 697-699.
@article{b8dd2efee86a429ea6e4a9fd411628fa,
title = "Advance decisions and the Mental Capacity Act",
abstract = "This article considers the requirements set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for valid advance decisions. The Act recognizes that an adult with capacity may refuse treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, in advance of losing capacity. If that advance decision is valid and applicable, it will bind health-care professionals, taking effect as if the patient had contemporaneously refused the treatment. However, in cases where the advance decision does not relate to treatment for a progressive disease, it will be extremely difficult for the patient to meet the dual specificity requirement - specifying the treatment to be refused and the circumstances in which that refusal should operate. Moreover, while a patient may explicitly revoke an advance decision while she retains the capacity to do so, the continuing validity of an advance decision may be called into question by the patient implicitly revoking her advance refusal or by a change of circumstance. This article concludes that the key to enabling patients to exercise precedent autonomy will be full and frank discussion of the scope and intentions underlying advance decisions between patients and their health-care professionals.",
keywords = "Advance decisions, Best interests, Capacity, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Patient autonomy",
author = "Samantha Halliday",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
doi = "10.12968/bjon.2009.18.11.42723",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "697--699",
journal = "British Journal of Nursing",
issn = "0966-0461",
publisher = "MA Healthcare Ltd",
number = "11",

}

Advance decisions and the Mental Capacity Act. / Halliday, Samantha.

In: British Journal of Nursing, Vol. 18, No. 11, 11.2009, p. 697-699.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advance decisions and the Mental Capacity Act

AU - Halliday, Samantha

PY - 2009/11

Y1 - 2009/11

N2 - This article considers the requirements set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for valid advance decisions. The Act recognizes that an adult with capacity may refuse treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, in advance of losing capacity. If that advance decision is valid and applicable, it will bind health-care professionals, taking effect as if the patient had contemporaneously refused the treatment. However, in cases where the advance decision does not relate to treatment for a progressive disease, it will be extremely difficult for the patient to meet the dual specificity requirement - specifying the treatment to be refused and the circumstances in which that refusal should operate. Moreover, while a patient may explicitly revoke an advance decision while she retains the capacity to do so, the continuing validity of an advance decision may be called into question by the patient implicitly revoking her advance refusal or by a change of circumstance. This article concludes that the key to enabling patients to exercise precedent autonomy will be full and frank discussion of the scope and intentions underlying advance decisions between patients and their health-care professionals.

AB - This article considers the requirements set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for valid advance decisions. The Act recognizes that an adult with capacity may refuse treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, in advance of losing capacity. If that advance decision is valid and applicable, it will bind health-care professionals, taking effect as if the patient had contemporaneously refused the treatment. However, in cases where the advance decision does not relate to treatment for a progressive disease, it will be extremely difficult for the patient to meet the dual specificity requirement - specifying the treatment to be refused and the circumstances in which that refusal should operate. Moreover, while a patient may explicitly revoke an advance decision while she retains the capacity to do so, the continuing validity of an advance decision may be called into question by the patient implicitly revoking her advance refusal or by a change of circumstance. This article concludes that the key to enabling patients to exercise precedent autonomy will be full and frank discussion of the scope and intentions underlying advance decisions between patients and their health-care professionals.

KW - Advance decisions

KW - Best interests

KW - Capacity

KW - Mental Capacity Act 2005

KW - Patient autonomy

UR - https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/toc/bjon/current

U2 - 10.12968/bjon.2009.18.11.42723

DO - 10.12968/bjon.2009.18.11.42723

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 697

EP - 699

JO - British Journal of Nursing

T2 - British Journal of Nursing

JF - British Journal of Nursing

SN - 0966-0461

IS - 11

ER -