Adult safeguarding legislation: Navigating the borderlands between mental capacity, mental health and social care law and practice

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q1 LAW International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.101964
Kathryn Mackay , Pearse McCusker
{"title":"Adult safeguarding legislation: Navigating the borderlands between mental capacity, mental health and social care law and practice","authors":"Kathryn Mackay ,&nbsp;Pearse McCusker","doi":"10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.101964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Adult safeguarding legislation is contentious because it seeks to protect ‘vulnerable’ adults who fall between the borderlands of social care, mental health and mental capacity law. As a new and complex area of law and practice, further research on adult safeguarding legislation is required, in particular to consider it efficacy and human rights implications. Utilising a narrative literature review approach this article explores current research evidence on the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 to consider whether safeguarding powers and duties can achieve a proportionate balance between individual autonomy and the state's duties to protect adults at risk of harm and, if so, how. The findings demonstrate there is a wide range of people who can fall into these borderland areas. For a majority, the use of the Act has made significant positive differences to their lives. However, while supported decision-making was identified it was not found to be consistently applied. In addition, concerns emerged around the adequacy of some professionals' legal knowledge, the consistent upholding of adults' will and preferences, and the commitment to and resourcing of supported decision-making. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, it is concluded that this Act provides vital functions but amendments would enhance alignment with the CRPD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47930,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016025272400013X/pdfft?md5=e07b304e0c2a2928a5d9e148452d4216&pid=1-s2.0-S016025272400013X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016025272400013X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Adult safeguarding legislation is contentious because it seeks to protect ‘vulnerable’ adults who fall between the borderlands of social care, mental health and mental capacity law. As a new and complex area of law and practice, further research on adult safeguarding legislation is required, in particular to consider it efficacy and human rights implications. Utilising a narrative literature review approach this article explores current research evidence on the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 to consider whether safeguarding powers and duties can achieve a proportionate balance between individual autonomy and the state's duties to protect adults at risk of harm and, if so, how. The findings demonstrate there is a wide range of people who can fall into these borderland areas. For a majority, the use of the Act has made significant positive differences to their lives. However, while supported decision-making was identified it was not found to be consistently applied. In addition, concerns emerged around the adequacy of some professionals' legal knowledge, the consistent upholding of adults' will and preferences, and the commitment to and resourcing of supported decision-making. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, it is concluded that this Act provides vital functions but amendments would enhance alignment with the CRPD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人保障立法:驾驭精神行为能力、精神健康和社会关怀法律与实践之间的边界地带
成人保障立法具有争议性,因为它旨在保护处于社会关怀、精神健康和心理行为能力法律边界之间的 "弱势 "成人。作为一个新的、复杂的法律和实践领域,需要对成人保护立法进行进一步研究,特别是要考虑其效力和人权影响。本文采用叙事性文献综述的方法,探讨了当前有关 2007 年《成人支持与保护(苏格兰)法》的研究证据,以考虑保障权力和义务是否能在个人自主权与国家保护面临伤害风险的成人的义务之间实现适度的平衡,以及如果能实现平衡,如何实现平衡。研究结果表明,有很多人可能会陷入这些边缘地带。对大多数人来说,该法案的使用给他们的生活带来了重大的积极变化。然而,虽然发现了支持决策的情况,但并没有发现它得到了一致的应用。此外,一些专业人员的法律知识是否充分、是否始终坚持成年人的意愿和偏好,以及对辅助决策的承诺和资源配置等问题也令人担忧。尽管存在这些缺陷,但得出的结论是,该法提供了重要的功能,但对其进行修订将增强其与《残疾人权利公约》的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
54
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Psychiatry is intended to provide a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and information among professionals concerned with the interface of law and psychiatry. There is a growing awareness of the need for exploring the fundamental goals of both the legal and psychiatric systems and the social implications of their interaction. The journal seeks to enhance understanding and cooperation in the field through the varied approaches represented, not only by law and psychiatry, but also by the social sciences and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Antisocial personality disorder and determinants among prisoners in South Gondar zone correctional institutions, Northwest Ethiopia: An institution-based cross-sectional study Editorial Board Perceptions of bias and credibility of male and female clinical psychologist and psychiatrist expert witnesses presenting clinical information in the courtroom Which diagnoses and arguments regarding severe mental disorder do forensic psychiatric experts in Sweden consider in different cases? A qualitative vignette study Legal consciousness of psychiatric patients in Israeli hospitals: Awareness and satisfaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1