法律与无行为能力判定:治理的冲突?

A. Boyle
{"title":"法律与无行为能力判定:治理的冲突?","authors":"A. Boyle","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00700.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article will consider the highly charged questions raised by two major sets of law reforms in England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 2007, which, although applying to closely related clinical populations, proceeded along entirely separate legislative paths. By justifying its proposals for reform of mental health legislation on the grounds of ‘risk’, the Government failed to take into account the implications of enforced treatment on patients who may retain decision-making capacity.","PeriodicalId":166493,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Law and Incapacity Determinations: A Conflict of Governance?\",\"authors\":\"A. Boyle\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00700.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article will consider the highly charged questions raised by two major sets of law reforms in England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 2007, which, although applying to closely related clinical populations, proceeded along entirely separate legislative paths. By justifying its proposals for reform of mental health legislation on the grounds of ‘risk’, the Government failed to take into account the implications of enforced treatment on patients who may retain decision-making capacity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":166493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal\",\"volume\":\"138 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00700.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00700.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

本文将考虑英格兰和威尔士的两套主要法律改革——《2005年精神能力法》和《2007年精神卫生法》——提出的高度敏感的问题,这两套法律改革虽然适用于密切相关的临床人群,但却沿着完全不同的立法道路进行。政府以"风险"为理由提出改革精神健康立法的建议,但没有考虑到强制治疗对可能保留决策能力的病人的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Law and Incapacity Determinations: A Conflict of Governance?
This article will consider the highly charged questions raised by two major sets of law reforms in England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 2007, which, although applying to closely related clinical populations, proceeded along entirely separate legislative paths. By justifying its proposals for reform of mental health legislation on the grounds of ‘risk’, the Government failed to take into account the implications of enforced treatment on patients who may retain decision-making capacity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antitrust Error Costs Bostock was Bogus: Textualism, Pluralism, and Title VII 5G Deployment: The Role and Challenges of Regulatory Bodies in Ensuring Convergence Within the EU Data Point: 2019 Mortgage Market Activity and Trends The CIA's Democratic Integrity: Information Sharing and Electoral Accountability
×
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