Mental Capacity Act (2015)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) introduced a statutory framework for advance decision making in England and Wales building upon the common law recognition of advance decisions. Academics considered that a bias may operate against upholding advance decisions refusing life-sustaining treatment 1. It’s commonly felt that judges usually give decisions favouring preservation of life and making advance decisions invalid on various grounds. Recent case-law indicates that a high level of specificity is required for advance refusals of life-sustaining treatment and, in some capacity must be demonstrated at the time of making the decision. This essay will argue the legal back ground of the advance decisions and relevant case law. There are suggestions that advance care planning (ACP) instead of advance decisions (ADRT) may be more helpful when it comes to the practice of law on ground 2.

The Community Mental Health Act of 1963, was the first federal law that inspired community-based mental health care, and it ignited the transformation of the public mental health system (Young Minds Advocacy, 2016). Other names of the Act are Mental Retardation and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963. It was the beginning of the Deinstitutionalized movement in mental health treatment options for children, youth, and adults (National Council for Behavioral Health (NCBH), 2015). States received money from grants, from the Community Mental Health Act for the construction of these mental health centers. Initially, the intention of the grant program was to provide 1500 mental health centers nationally (Young Minds

The managers hearing was arranged to discuss the adults appeal and to act in the best interest of the adult (reference). Prior to the meeting, the physciaric nurse and adult spoke about his thoughts and expected outcome. The adult was deemed to have full capacity at this present time. However, an advocate was used to support the adult in his argument. A framework from the Department of Health (2011) advised that advocacy should be done in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005), safeguarding the

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 states that “an act done, or decision made, under this Act, for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests’. The Deprivation of liberty safeguards are a legal framework introduced into the mental capacity act 2005 (MCA) by the mental health act 2007 (MHA). This legislation protects the rights of people in care homes or hospitals, where the care is imputable to the state, who lack capacity or have a mental dysfunction to make decisions regarding their care and treatment (Jones, 2008 p 383). DOLS ensures against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (dol) which was identified in the Bournewood Case ( HL v UK 45508/99 (2004) ECHR 471). The judgement in this case determined that in order to adhere to the ECtHR, lawful detention needed to meet Article 5 (1) that requires a ‘procedure prescribed by law’ and Article 5 (4) which requires a means to apply to a court to see if deprivation of liberty was unlawful (dols code of practice 2008). As such, the DOLs are designed to protect the rights of people who fall within the scope of the act.

The Mental Capacity Act is legislation which increases the legal rights of the person with dementia to be involved in decisions about their own health and care. The Act also means that when somebody no longer has the mental capacity to be involved in decision making themselves, their carer will have the right to be consulted about decisions being made on behalf of the person with

 Mental Capacity Act 2005 – The MCA applies to England and Wales. The primary purpose of the MCA is to promote and safeguard decision-making within a legal framework. It does this in two ways: * By empowering people to make decisions for themselves wherever possible and by protecting people who lack capacity by providing a flexible framework that places individuals at the heart of the decision making process * By allowing people to plan ahead for a time in the future when they might lack the capacity for any number of reasons

| The Mental Capacity Act 2005 prevents people who lack mental capacity from being mistreated or wilfully neglected.

My chosen reflection piece is on ageism, see appendix one. I will provide evidence reflecting the links between diabetes and depression, which will form my chosen seminar topic, see appendix two. I will then critically analyze the mental capacity Act (2005) and relate it to my specific scenario, see appendix three. I will explore how nurses the Act within nursing practice, decision- making, and how we access a person’s capacity to make specific decisions. I will explore any ethical issues that may arise following the principles of Mental Capacity Act (2005).

The Mental Health Services Act is a monumental proposition that has helped many people for more than a decade. In California alone, close to 1.2 million adults and around 422,000 children live with a serious mental illness (State 2010). Without the proper treatment, suicide is the leading cause of death for a person battling an untreated mental illness (State 2010). With over thirteen billion dollars raised so far, MHSA has been the root of funding for mental health in California (Williams 2015). MHSA is still a work in progress. The act is nowhere near perfect, as a recent audit has shown, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

This act is made to help protect those who are unable to make decisions for them. This could be due to a mental health condition, a learning difficulty or a brain injury. The purpose of this act is to allow adults to make as many decisions for them as possible. For example, somebody with dementia might make a decision about whether they want future medical treatment or not. This act links to people who are suffering with dementia as within the later stages of dementia they are unable to make decisions for themselves and consequently, the Mental Capacity Act ensures that the individual has somebody to make the decisions for them.

The main aspects of this act are that a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity, the person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success, a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision simply because he makes an unwise decision, an act done or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests and before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person's

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.

In the course of proper identification, evaluation, and treatment, children and adolescents suffering with mental illness can conduct positive, normal lives. Nevertheless, the devastating majority of children with mental illnesses are unsuccessfully identified and the lack of treatment or support services have led to a subordinate worth of life and violence. The Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 689) is an inclusive bill proposed to address the extensive issue of mental health. By strongly considering the United States’ struggle against mental illness and school violence, as well as utilizing theoretical constructs to examine the Senate’s bill, a social worker can develop a more holistic perspective that can productively integrate practical insights reached from a variety of different points of view.

Treatment administered in food or drink should never be given to patients who are clearly refusing to accept treatment and have capacity to consent according to Mental Health Act 1983 whereas treatment for those who lack capacity may be prescribed in their best interests under the common law doctrine of necessity, and thus necessary to save life or

. Mental capacity act is for the customers who doesn’t have the capacity to make decisions that are in their best interest. If the person doesn’t have a family member or friend with power of attorney they will need to have an advocate. These make the decisions that are in the best interest for the customer. This ensures that the customer has a voice, they will speak on behalf of the customer and will support that person through aspect of their life. This ensures they have the correct care that they are