科研之友
微信
新浪微博
Facebook
分享链接
摘要
Introduction: There is uncertainty about how to identify deprivation of liberty and the interface of the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Safeguards.
Objective: To increase current understanding by exploring how an expert legal panel interpret existing case law relating to deprivation of liberty in the clinical setting.
Design: Clinical vignettes of real patients were used to explore lawyers' thinking about important factors that: (1) distinguish lawful restriction from deprivation of liberty and (2) govern the choice between safeguard regimes when there is deprivation of liberty. The relative importance of such factors was discussed in a consensus meeting using a modified nominal group approach.
Participants and setting: Six eminent barristers and solicitors with expertise in mental health law attended a consensus meeting after making individual judgements about vignettes describing the situations of 28 incapacitated patients who had been admitted informally to a range of psychiatric inpatient units in South East London.
Results: Lawyers attributed key importance to a patient's 'freedom to leave' and suggested that patients' subjective experiences should be considered when identifying deprivation of liberty.
Conclusions: Clarification of deprivation of liberty and its safeguards will develop with future case law. Based on current available case law, the lawyers' expert views represented a divergence from Code of Practice guidance. We suggest that clinicians give consideration to this.
- 出版日期2011-10
