Alex Ruck Keene, 'Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill published - headlines' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 4/7/18): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author=Ruck Keene, Alex | |Author=Ruck Keene, Alex | ||
|Publication=Mental Capacity Law and Policy | |Publication=Mental Capacity Law and Policy | ||
|Date=2018/07/04 | |||
|URL=http://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/mental-capacity-amendment-bill-published-headlines/ | |URL=http://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/mental-capacity-amendment-bill-published-headlines/ | ||
|Type=Blog post | |Type=Blog post | ||
Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
|Saved=Yes | |Saved=Yes | ||
|News=No | |News=No | ||
|RSS pubdate=2021 | |RSS pubdate=2021/04/10 05:23:12 PM | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 15:07, 31 December 2021
LPS This article notes the following information about the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill 2017-19: "(1) The Bill is focused solely upon a (version of) the Liberty Protection Safeguards, so the Law Commission’s proposed amendments to ss.4/5 have gone, as have regulation-making powers in relation to supported decision-making; (2) There is no statutory definition of deprivation of liberty (or provision for advance consent); (3) There are provisions for emergency deprivation of liberty/deprivations pending authorisation under the LPS; (4) The scheme of the LPS is broadly replicated, albeit from age 18 upwards, and with a significant change in relation to care homes, where considerably more responsibility is going to be placed on the care home managers in terms of arranging assessments/carrying out consultation. The reference to necessity/proportionality is no longer tied specifically to risk of harm/risk to self, but simply, now, necessity and proportionality; (5) The Law Commission’s proposed tort of unlawful deprivation of liberty (actionable against a private care provider) has gone; (6) The LPS ‘line’ of excluding the LPS from the mental health arrangements has been changed, and the current status quo (i.e. objection) as regards the dividing line between the MCA/MHA in DOLS is maintained."