{"title":"精神能力法的两种生命：在比较分析中重新思考东西方的二元对立。","authors":"Hillary Chua, Camillia Kong, Michael Dunn","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwae034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales and Singapore's Mental Capacity Act 2008 (which substantially transplants provisions from the former statute) might appear to be twins on paper, but they have gone on to lead very different lives. In this article, we examine how two broadly identical laws have taken on divergent identities within their respective jurisdictions when implemented and interpreted in the courtroom. We reveal and analyse differences in parliamentary intent concerning at what stage a person's decision-making agency is putatively empowered; judicial development of central concepts; underlying socio-cultural commitments; and outline opportunities for bi-directional learning in mental capacity law across both jurisdictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The two lives of the Mental Capacity Act: rethinking East-west binaries in comparative analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hillary Chua, Camillia Kong, Michael Dunn\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/medlaw/fwae034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales and Singapore's Mental Capacity Act 2008 (which substantially transplants provisions from the former statute) might appear to be twins on paper, but they have gone on to lead very different lives. In this article, we examine how two broadly identical laws have taken on divergent identities within their respective jurisdictions when implemented and interpreted in the courtroom. We reveal and analyse differences in parliamentary intent concerning at what stage a person's decision-making agency is putatively empowered; judicial development of central concepts; underlying socio-cultural commitments; and outline opportunities for bi-directional learning in mental capacity law across both jurisdictions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae034\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae034","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The two lives of the Mental Capacity Act: rethinking East-west binaries in comparative analysis.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales and Singapore's Mental Capacity Act 2008 (which substantially transplants provisions from the former statute) might appear to be twins on paper, but they have gone on to lead very different lives. In this article, we examine how two broadly identical laws have taken on divergent identities within their respective jurisdictions when implemented and interpreted in the courtroom. We reveal and analyse differences in parliamentary intent concerning at what stage a person's decision-making agency is putatively empowered; judicial development of central concepts; underlying socio-cultural commitments; and outline opportunities for bi-directional learning in mental capacity law across both jurisdictions.
期刊介绍：
The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law.
The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
