C3a Pros And Cons

It is to be submitted that the proposal of the Law Commission in the 2013 Discussion Paper presents on balance the most fitted approach to non-responsibility defences, since it eradicates the current illogical distinction between ‘insanity’ and ‘automatism’. Under this proposal, the ‘M’Naghten rule’ should be abolished and replaced by a new non-responsibility defence relevant to those cases of ‘total lack of criminal capacity resulting from a recognised medical condition (provided the other criteria of the defence are met) without limiting it to mental disorders’, assuming no culpable fault. The pertinent criminal capacities in this defence are the abilities to make a rational judgment, to comprehend the wrongfulness of a conduct and to have control of one’s body. This general defence would lead to the special verdict ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a recognized medical condition’ and disposal powers may attach. Under the ‘recognised medical condition defence’ the accused would only have an evidential burden and it would be for the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not criminally liable by reason of a recognised medical condition. Regarding automatism, the common law defence would be abolished and the reformed defence would be

The court must listen to the evidence received by two doctors and their evidence must satisfy the court that the offender is suffering from a mental illness as described under the definition above and that their detention is appropriate for medical treatment to take place. They must also assert the court that appropriate medical treatment is available for the offender and when considering to imposing the above order the courts must also take into consideration the offenders history and character; any other relevant circumstances and any other alternative methods that could be imposed. All other avenues must also be explored before the court makes its final decision. the evidence given by the doctors must ascertain the court that hospitalisation is the most beneficial course of action to take in this offenders case (MHLO, 2010)

3. Voluntary - The will should be stated free of any force or threat, and in response to information revealed, because understanding of the choices and their penalties has been achieved. When an honest choice is made the patient takes a part of responsibility of the fallout.

a. Patients who are used to be competent are not longer competent, but they expressed their wishes before becoming incompetent.

3) the husband made the transfer to tenancy by the entirety at a time when to not make such a transfer would have rendered him insolvent, and

Moreover, through the Mental Capacity Act (2005), it provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of the individual who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves as long as it does not restrict the rights and freedom of action.

Under the provisions of the bill, a jury would be required to find that the defendant was suffering from mental disease or defect and the defendant was guilty of a crime. The plea of guilty but mentally ill could only be accepted with a prior hearing on the issue of mental illness.

To first understand why she would be label under this mental state, the term of negligence must be defined. Negligence is the “state of mind that accompanies an injury or harm proximately caused by breach of standard of care owed by one person to another. There are four elements of negligence: standard of care, breach of that standard, proximate cause, and harm or injury produced. The severity of the breach distinguishes criminal from civil negligence” ” (Chamelin & Thomas, 2012, p. 61). Therefore, in the case of Barbara, she owed her children a duty to not infringe their welfare or safety through the first element of negligence known as standard of care. This element considers when one person harms another then the ideal of duty also comes into play if it satisfies the element or not and whether or not the duty can be fixed by statutory or common law. The textbook points out that one such duty is the parent’s duty to the child. Hence, as there mother, it was Barbara’s legal responsibility to refrain from acting in a dangerous way to her children, such as leaving an eight year old and a two and half year old to defend for themselves for 2 to 3 hours while she was out having a “good

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

3) On what basis could County argue that it is conforming with the criterion at 1715(3)? On what basis could the state agency argue that County's application in nonconforming with the criterion? In your opinion, which side has the more persuasive argument? Why?

Dr. Gaddy was given power of attorney over Ms.m who was a patient and a close friend. MS. M had had an accident in her home, in which she injured her back. Dr. Gaddy discovered this and work to improve ms.m’s life. He also managed her financial life. During this time, dr. Gaddy never visited miss m. While in the hospital, dr. Gaddy had missed and tested for dementia. It was discovered that she had dementia. Miss em then became disgruntled with Dr. Gaddy and had him removed as power of attorney. It was brought up by the court that the dementia cause Ms.M to be mentally incapable of revoking the power of attorney.

in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a command (of reason), and

Her situation is one that has the potential to be a successful case of the insanity defense. For people in similar situations as this woman, the insanity defense is an essential justification in court. In court, insanity is a legal term. This term allows the defense to argue that the defendant is not responsible

B. I have a close friend, Ash, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia at an age of 23 earlier this year.

The advance directive, or living will, is one way of circumventing the ethical dilemma of Quinlan, as it is essentially a set of choices by the competent patient if faced with different hypothetical circumstances. Patients can thus feel comfortable knowing that their competent wishes have been documented and can be easily interpreted in case of catastrophe. However, the authority of advance directives is a topic hotly debated amongst medical ethicists (see Advance Directive Authority). Arguments against directives state that not all factors are considered by the person creating the advance order. Also, in some cases of severe dementia, it is argued that the personal identity of the author is no longer intact and therefore has no authority over the treatment of the “new” person. The debate on this topic is extremely complex, but many of today’s cases are decided on an individual basis, with the directive often being upheld.