Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Mental capacity: Different models and their controversies

  • Brian Joseph Murray
Summary

Modern legislation in the UK addressing the issue of decision-making ability uses tests of mental capacity based on the individual's ability to understand relevant information given to them. Alternative models of mental capacity do exist, but are largely considered defunct. This article reviews these alternative models and considers their importance. Far from being irrelevant to modern views on mental capacity, these models have already been incorporated into legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005. A better understanding of these models can improve clinicians’ understanding of mental capacity in general. Modern controversies such as the impact of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are discussed and ways in which our understanding of mental capacity may have to change in the future are addressed.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Appreciate the different ways of considering an individual's mental capacity

Understand the primacy and limitations of the functional test of mental capacity

Use this understanding to manage potential conflicts or disagreements when considering an individual's mental capacity

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Mental capacity: Different models and their controversies
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Mental capacity: Different models and their controversies
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Mental capacity: Different models and their controversies
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Dr Brian Murray, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Whiteleaf Centre, Bierton Road, Aylesbury HP20 1EG, UK. Email: brian.murray@oxfordhealth.nhs.uk
Footnotes
Hide All

Declaration of Interest

None

Footnotes
References
Hide All
British Medical Association, Law Society (2015) Assessment of Mental Capacity: A Practical Guide for Doctors and Lawyers (4th edn). The Law Society.
Charland, LC (2011) Decision-Making Capacity. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (eds Zalta, EN, Nodelman, U, Allen, C, et al). Stanford Center for the Study of Language and Information (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-capacity). Accessed 26 July 2017.
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Department of Health (2015) Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Grisso, T, Appelbaum, P (1998) Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. Oxford University Press.
Jones, R (2016) Mental Capacity Act Manual (7th edn). Sweet & Maxwell.
Kelly, B (2015) Best interests, mental capacity legislation and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. BJPsych Advances, 21: 188–95.
Law Commission (1995) Mental Incapacity (Law Com No 231). HMSO.
Law Commission (2017) Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty (Law Com No 372; HC 1079). TSO (The Staionery Office) (http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2017/03/lc372_mental_capacity.pdf).
Martin, W, Michalowski, S, Jütten, T, et al (2014) Achieving CRPD Compliance: Is the Mental Capacity Act of England and Wales Compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability? If Not, What Next? An Essex Autonomy Project Position Paper. University of Essex (http://repository.essex.ac.uk/13624/1/EAP-Position-Paper-FINAL-copy.pdf).
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2009) Dementia: Ethical Issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Post, S (2000) The Moral Challenge of Alzheimer Disease (2nd edn). Johns Hopkins Press.
Rands, G (2016) Old Age Faculty response to Law Commission consultation about DoLS. Royal College of Psychiatrists (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/faculties/oldagepsychiatry/newsletters/enewsletterjune2016/facultyresponsetolcondols.aspx). Accessed 9 August 2017.
Roth, L, Meisel, A, Lidz, C (1977) Tests of competency to consent to treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134: 279–84.
Ruck Keene, A, Butler-Cole, V, Allen, A, et al (2016) A Brief Guide to Carrying out Capacity Assessments (Mental Capacity Law Guidance Notes). 39 Essex Chambers.
Tan, J, Hope, T, Stewart, A (2003) Competence to refuse treatment in anorexia nervosa. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26: 697707.
Torke, AM, Alexander, GC, Lantos, J (2008) Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23: 1514–7.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Advances
  • ISSN: 2056-4678
  • EISSN: 2056-4686
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-advances
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 136 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 132 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 22nd April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Mental capacity: Different models and their controversies

  • Brian Joseph Murray
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *