Can you use the Mental Health Act with a person with capacity?

Amy Morby

A recent inquest in Cornwall reported on the sad case of 23 year old Amy Morby, who died as a result of an overdose.

It was reported on 28th May 2019 that she had received treatment at the Emergency Department in Truro three times in 4 days in September 2018. A week later she died of a fourth overdose.

The inquest reported that she was a patient of the local CMHT, and had also been assessed by the hospital psychiatric liaison team. The hospital assessor stated that Amy was treated at Treliske’s emergency department following deliberate overdoses on five occasions during 2018, including three times between September 2 and 6, just a week before she died.

He said that: “She was not acutely mentally ill. Amy’s problems were psycho-social stresses. Life was hard and she was going through a difficult time.”

The manager of the Community Mental Health Team said the team were shocked by her death as they did not consider the overdoses on September 2, 4 and 6 were actual suicide attempts. It was concluded that Amy was probably suffering from a borderline personality disorder.

There is, unfortunately, nothing out of the ordinary in this narrative. Many people suffering from a wide range of mental health problems make attempts to end their lives, and some are successful. Mental Health Services do try to help people at risk of suicide, but it is not always possible to achieve this.

Also unfortunately, identifying that a patient has a “personality disorder”, in particular, an emotionally unstable or borderline personality disorder, is often used as an excuse not only not to compel treatment, but also to decline to offer treatment.

However, there was one sentence in this report that particularly struck me:

“The inquest heard that Amy couldn’t be sectioned under the Mental Health Act as she had full capacity and wanted to continue working with the mental health team.”

It is not reported who said this in the inquest, but I know that many AMHPs would disagree.

For a start, I am reminded of the case of Kerry Wooltorton, about whom I have written on several occasions on this blog. She was allowed to die in hospital after drinking antifreeze, on the basis that she had made an advance decision to refuse treatment. The coroner in her case stated: “Kerrie had capacity and she could not therefore be treated”.

As I have said before, it is not uncommon to assess someone under the MHA who is either seriously planning suicide, or has taken an overdose of a noxious substance and is refusing treatment.

Capacity is not an essential factor in these assessments. Nowhere in the MHA is capacity mentioned in this context. The requirement is for someone to have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act (which is very broad), and to be in need of assessment and/or treatment.

Detention under either s.2 or s.3 MHA would then provide a legal framework to provide treatment against the will of the patient.

This is not to suggest that mental capacity has no part in decision making about use of the MHA. Indeed, there is an interface between the Mental Health Act, which is about mental disorder, and the Mental Capacity Act, which is all about mental capacity.

This is reinforced by a considerable quantity of case law, including AM v SLAM, and Cheshire West.

The case law makes a distinction between objecting and non-objecting patients, and capacitous and non-capacitous patients. A non-objecting, capacitous person can be treated in hospital for mental disorder without recourse to the MHA. But both an objecting capacitous person and an objecting non-capacitous person may be detained for assessment and treatment under the MHA, and in many situations should be, if it is the only means by which they can receive the assessment and treatment they require.

Whether deemed to be capacitous or not, Amy Morby could have been made subject to section of the MHA. The decision should perhaps have been allowed to have been made by an AMHP and 2 psychiatrists.

Can Advance Decisions be used to refuse treatment for suicide attempts?

I continue to be troubled by the concept of advance decisions to refuse treatment being used to prevent lifesaving treatment for the consequences of deliberate attempts to end one’s life.

I wrote about one such case back in 2011. This concerned a 26 year old woman called Kerrie Wooltorton. She committed suicide on 19^th September 2007 by swallowing ethylene glycol (antifreeze), and although she had herself called an ambulance and had allowed herself to be taken to hospital, she had refused the treatment which would have saved her life.

Kerrie Woooltorton's Inquest

The doctors in charge of her treatment allowed her to die because she had made what was at the time described as a “living will” stating that she did not wish to receive treatment for the effects of the deliberate ingesting of this lethal substance.

The reason I am revisiting this issue is because I recently came across an account of the inquest report. Previously, the only information I had was the news reports at the time of the inquest, which had taken place two years later in 2009.

Five days before, she had written a letter. This stated:

To whom this may concern, if I come into hospital regarding taking an overdose or any attempt on my life, I would like for NO lifesaving treatment to be given. I would appreciate if you could continue to give medicines to help relieve my discomfort, painkillers, oxygen, etc. I would hope these wishes will be carried out without loads of questioning.

Please be assured that I am 100% aware of the consequences of this and the probable outcome of drinking anti-freeze, eg. death in 95-99% of cases and if I survive then kidney failure, I understand and accept them and will take 100% responsibility for this decision.

I am aware that you may think that because I call the ambulance I therefore want treatment. THIS IS NOT THE CASE! I do however want to be comfortable as nobody want to die alone and scared and without going into details there are loads of reasons I do not want to die at home which I will realise that you will not understand and I apologise for this.

Please understand that I definitely don’t want any form of ventilation, resuscitation or dialysis, these are my wishes, please respect and carry them out.

In his summing up, the coroner stated:

Kerrie had capacity and she could not therefore be treated and indeed, going further than that, if she was treated in these circumstances and her wishes overridden, it would have been an assault to have done so… Any treatment to save Kerrie’s life in these circumstances would have been unlawful because the law respects the autonomy of an individual to make a decision even if the decision is seen to be perverse or unwise by others.

It was stated at the inquest that Kerrie had an “incurable emotionally unstable personality disorder”, that she had a long history of self harm (she had taken 9 similar doses of antifreeze in the year before her death), and that she had been sectioned and admitted to psychiatric hospital on a number of occasions in the past.

In my original post on Kerrie Wooltorton, I dismantled the case being made that it was unlawful to treat in these circumstances. Stuart Sorensen, writing in Community Care at the time, concluded that the Mental Capacity Act's Code of Practice “is clear that the Act does not support suicide, assisted dying or mercy killing”. Her clear intention to end her life:

means that she cannot be seen as decision-maker in the eyes of the law. The power to decide passes to the care team who have to act in what they reasonably believe to be her best interests. It seems reasonable to doubt that best interests means watching her die slowly and presumably painfully from acute poisoning.

The inquest, taking place 2 years after the Mental Capacity Act, made an assumption that the decisions the doctors had made related to the MCA.

However, when I looked more closely at the dates, I realised that the MCA did not actually come into force until 1^st October 2007. This was 2 weeks after Kerrie had written her advance decision to refuse treatment, and over a week after she had taken her life.

Government guidance on implementation of the MCA said that “most advance decisions, refusing life-sustaining treatments, made before October 2007 are unlikely to meet the specific requirements of the Act.” This fact in itself should have provided sufficient justification for the hospital to have disregarded her “living will” and to have provided her with treatment.

Should such advance decisions be respected?

So, to come back to my initial question, just because Kerrie Wooltorton’s advance decision could legitimately have been disregarded, does that mean that advance decisions, properly made out, would have to be respected in all circumstances?

To begin at the beginning, S.24(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 states:

“Advance decision” means a decision made by a person, after he has reached 18 and when he has capacity to do so, that if—

(a) at a later time and in such circumstances as he may specify, a specified treatment is proposed to be carried out or continued by a person providing health care for him, and

(b) at that time he lacks capacity to consent to the carrying out or continuation of the treatment, the specified treatment is not to be carried out or continued.

The MCA Code of Practice makes it clear the sort of circumstances that might justify making, and respecting an advance decision to refuse treatment. It provides this scenario:

Mrs Long’s family has a history of polycystic ovary syndrome. She has made a written advance decision refusing any treatment or procedures that might affect her fertility. The document states that her ovaries and uterus must not be removed. She is having surgery to treat a blocked fallopian tube and, during the consent process, she told her doctor about her advance decision. During surgery the doctor discovers a solid mass that he thinks might be cancerous. In his clinical judgement, he thinks it would be in Mrs Long’s best interests for him to remove the ovary. But he knows that Mrs Long had capacity when she made her valid and applicable advance decision, so he must respect her rights and follow her decision. After surgery, he can discuss the matter with Mrs Long and advise her about treatment options.

In this situation, it is clear that Mrs Long has capacity to make an informed decision, and that the decision is based on sound principles. She wants to have children, and does not want any treatment that might jeopardise this.

But what about people who want to successfully end their lives? This is not nearly so straightforward.

In the case of people requiring treatment for mental disorder, the Code has this to say:

Advance decisions can refuse any kind of treatment, whether for a physical or mental disorder. But generally an advance decision to refuse treatment for mental disorder can be overruled if the person is detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983, when treatment could be given compulsorily under Part 4 of that Act. Advance decisions to refuse treatment for other illnesses or conditions are not affected by the fact that the person is detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act.

So what the Code is saying is that treatment for mental disorder can be given under the Mental Health Act regardless of any advance decision, although treatment for purely medical problems cannot be given under the MHA.

So in the case of Mrs Long, if she happened to be detained under the MHA because of the need for treatment for mental illness, she could be given that specific treatment, but her existing advance decision relating to gynaecological treatment would still stand.

But when it comes to respecting an advance decision in the case of an attempt at suicide, it becomes more complex.

Professor Kapur, writing in the British Medical Journal, has this to say:

It is difficult to be certain about an individual’s capacity at the time of drawing up an advance directive and, although this is an issue with advance directives generally, it may be particularly pertinent for suicidal individuals. Suicidal behaviour is clearly linked to psychiatric disorder, with most people who die by suicide having evidence of a psychiatric illness at the time of death. This can affect decision-making capacity and even the law recognises that advance directives may not apply if a person is likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act.

If there is any question that the patient lacks capacity at the time of the need for life-saving treatment, then a best interests decision could be made to override any advance decision.

In the case of Kerrie Wooltorton, for example, there was a known history of mental disorder, she had been subject to the Mental Health Act on several occasions, and she had a history of self harm using antifreeze.

Looking at the timeline leading to the fatal event, she had written her “living will” 5 days before drinking the antifreeze.

This raises serious questions as to whether or not she had capacity at the time she wrote the letter. She was clearly planning to drink the antifreeze, and it would appear that she had written the letter in order to try to preempt any attempt to save her life. As she had an established mental disorder, and was clearly suicidal at the time she wrote this letter, it would be fairly safe to speculate that her capacity at that time was impaired.

There was certainly sufficient evidence to cast enough doubt on her capacity to ignore her wishes and provide her with the necessary treatment.

But the MCA has more to say. This is on the subject of assisting a suicide.

S.62 MCA states:

For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act is to be taken to affect the law relating to murder or manslaughter or the operation of section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 (c. 60) (assisting suicide).

S.2 of the Suicide Act 1961 relates to complicity in another’s suicide. While the Suicide Act made it no longer an offence to commit suicide, it is an offence to do an act “capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and [that] act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

The Code points out: “Nobody can ask for and receive procedures that are against the law (for example, help with committing suicide)” (9.6).

While on the surface this appears to relate more to the active assistance of suicide, it is arguable that a deliberate failure to give life saving treatment might actually constitute a criminal offence.

Purely on this basis, I would argue that a doctor would be justified in deciding not to risk prosecution.

So what should a hospital do when someone who has attempted suicide presents with an advance decision to refuse treatment?

Clearly, the first thing to establish would be the validity of the decision. One would need to be absolutely certain that they had full capacity when the decision was made.

It is arguable that someone with a history of severe mental disorder, and with suicidal ideation and a history of previous attempts, may not have full capacity. If the decision was made within days of the action, as in Kerrie Wooltorton’s case, this could be evidence that their state of mind at the time they made the decision was impaired by their mental disorder. 

Such an advance decision could easily be construed as being invalid.

But what about a hypothetical case of someone with motor neurone disease who had made an advance decision some months previously not to be treated or resuscitated, and who had then contrived to take a fatal overdose at the point at which they considered their condition to be adversely affecting their quality of life so as to make that life worthless? Would one disregard their decision? If they had had capacity, and had rationally explained their thinking well in advance, it may be difficult to justify doing that.

Other ways of bypassing an advance decision in these circumstances

Up until now, I have not explored alternatives to relying on the Mental Capacity Act. There are at least two other options.

One is, of course, to use the Mental Health Act.

It is not uncommon to assess someone under the MHA who is either seriously planning suicide, or has taken an overdose of a noxious substance and is refusing treatment.

Capacity is not an essential factor in these assessments. Nowhere in the MHA is capacity mentioned. The requirement is for someone to have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act (which is very broad), and to be in need of assessment and/or treatment.

Detention under either S.2 or S.3 MHA would then provide a legal framework to provide treatment against the will of the patient. While one cannot use this to compel treatment for unrelated medical conditions (as in the case of Mrs Long), it can be (and often is) used to treat the consequences of self harm arising from the patient’s mental disorder. This would include treatment for overdoses or the effects of other noxious substances.

Any advance decision would be irrelevant in such a situation.

The hospital would also have a third option. This would be to go to the Court of Protection. Then a Judge can make a decision as to whether to impose life saving treatment or to permit the withdrawal of treatment.

I have discussed a number of court decisions on this blog where a Judge, or even the Appeal Court, has been asked to make decisions relating to the treatment or otherwise of people with anorexia nervosa and other mental disorders.

So to conclude, I do not think that there was a need for Kerrie Wooltorton to die back in 2007. I also think that, in a similar situation today, there are a number of ways in which treatment could be provided regardless of the existence of any advance decision.

People with mental disorder do not have to be allowed to die simply because that is what they say they want at the time of the crisis.

Anorexia and the Interface Between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act: Recent Case Law

There is a growing body of case law relating to the treatment of patients with severe anorexia nervosa. I have discussed previous cases several times on this blog. They include the case of E, the case of X, and the case of W. There has recently been a fourth, the case of Z.

While all have been heard in the Court of Protection, and all involve issues relating to capacity to make decisions about treatment, they also illustrate the extent to which the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act intersect. They highlight the limitations the Mental Health Act may have when dealing with very complex and often intractable mental disorders like anorexia nervosa.

Z is a 46 year old woman. She has had anorexia nervosa since the age of 15 years. The Judge notes: “despite the fact that she has been admitted to hospital on innumerable occasions and received many different treatments, outpatient support and therapeutic input, it is impossible to identify any time in her history where Z has made anything which could be characterised as a sustainable recovery in terms of her weight gain.”

Her physical health has suffered, to the extent that she has osteoporosis “to such a severe degree that her entire skeleton is compromised in a way that would otherwise only be seen in the very elderly”. In October 2016, her Body Mass Index was 9.6 (normal is between 19-25), and in November 2016 she was detained under Sec.3 MHA.

The Trust bringing the case, Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, sought a declaration that Z lacked the capacity to make decisions about her care and treatment. This was given in the middle of December 2016, and the Judge concluded that there were three options open to the treating team. These were:

• “to continue treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 which would involve detention in hospital and naso-gastric feeding under physical restraint until Z’s weight and physical health improved to the point where it would be possible to discharge her.”
• “continuation of feeding, again under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, involving detention in hospital, but the feeding to take place under chemical sedation”
• To “be discharged from the framework of the Mental Health Act 1983 and treated, if she is prepared to engage at all, only on a voluntary basis.”

The Judge concluded that the third option should be followed, and that Z would therefore be discharged from detention under Sec.3 MHA and would return to live with her parents.

He noted: “Accordingly, the declarations and orders I make are pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  That said, I consider that given this application is heard in the Court of Protection, sitting in the High Court, I would have had the scope to make the declarations under the Inherent Jurisdiction.”

Of other three cases, E, X & W, the Judge reached the same conclusion in the cases of X and W, which was essentially for there to be no forced treatment. Only in the case of E did the Judge advocate continued treatment, and I understand that treatment continued for E under Sec.3 of the Mental Health Act.

So, out of four cases of women with severe anorexia nervosa (and often with complicating conditions such as alcohol dependency and emotionally unstable personality disorder) three were essentially allowed to die. All the cases were deemed to lack the capacity to make decisions about their treatment, and it was concluded that these decisions were in their best interests.

What do these cases have to say about anorexia nervosa, and about the Mental Health Act?

Anorexia nervosa is an insidious and pernicious disorder. It is notoriously hard to treat. Mortality is high, whatever treatment is offered. For patients with anorexia serious enough to require inpatient treatment, less than half experience remission of symptoms after 12 years.

When patients lose weight to the extent that their life is endangered, treatment has to consist initially of ensuring that they gain weight and receive adequate nutrition. This often has to take the form of nasogastric feeding, in other words, inserting nutrition directly into the stomach using a tube. This is an exceptionally intrusive process, and often restraint of various forms has to be used. This is difficult and distressing not just for the patient, but for the doctors and nurses having to administer the treatment.

If the patient refuses to accept lifesaving treatment, the Mental Health Act (Sec.3, for treatment) may have to be used.

In the longer term, the talking treatments, such as cognitive behavioural therapy and cognitive analytic therapy, have the best outcomes. But these therapies can only be given with the consent and cooperation of the patient, and when they are in a reasonable state of physical health.

The Judge in the case of Z stated that “decisions of this nature impose very considerable intellectual and emotional burden on all those involved.” The majority of the decisions in these cases recognised that the clinicians involved with these women had reached a point at which the risks of continuing treatment were not only outweighing the risks of ceasing treatment, but were also causing unjustifiable distress to the patients and their relatives.

I am aware of little equivalent case law relating to other psychiatric disorders. I can only think of the case of C in 2015, a woman diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder who did not wish to continue treatment for the effects of a serious overdose because she had “lost her sparkle”. There was considerable publicity about this case at the time.

It appears that anorexia nervosa is almost unique in producing case law relating to the ending of treatment for the effects of mental disorder. These judgments seem to suggest that there are times when the Mental Health Act should not be used indiscriminately to preserve and prolong life, that when all possible treatments for a mental disorder are exhausted, at least when it comes to anorexia nervosa, such patients should be allowed to die. The treatment becomes worse than the condition, the treatment becomes oppressive and disproportionate, and in breach of the patient’s human rights.

AMHP’s will undoubtedly continue to be asked to make applications for treatment under the MHA for people with anorexia nervosa, but it is important to weigh up the likelihood that proposed treatment is likely to have the desired effect, and will not merely serve to prolong the patient’s suffering and possibly be in breach of the Human Rights Act.

AMHPs will have to continue to be mindful of the psychiatric opinions informing their decisions. But it may be that referral to the Court of Protection for opinions relating to ongoing invasive treatment should sometimes be considered in preference to the Mental Health Act.

Either way, these are not easy decisions to make.

Ask the AMHP: Getting discharged by a Tribunal; aftercare for a Sec.37/41 patient; and treatment, accommodation and mental capacity

Ask The Masked AMHP for the answers to your thorny MHA related problems. He might know the answer. Or not.

The Masked AMHP always tries to assist people, whether professionals or patients, who ask for assistance or advice. However, I cannot guarantee that my advice is definitive.

Debbie, who was an inpatient detained under Sec.3 MHA, writes to the Masked AMHP:   

Debbie:

I read your blog to get advice about my tribunal, which is tomorrow. I wondered if you have any further advice as to how I can win and how to present myself, as I am told by the solicitor that this will be most of the problem.

Masked AMHP:

Look as smart and "together" as possible in the circumstances. Look attentive during the tribunal itself. It's probably better to let your solicitor lead and basically keep as quiet as possible. Don't interrupt when others are speaking, even if you feel they're wrong in what they are saying. Take notes, then ask your solicitor to raise your concerns on your behalf.

Around a fifth of appeals result in the section being lifted, so it's always worth appealing.

Debbie:

Thanks. Do you happen to know what chance someone has if they have been on 2 weeks consecutive leave and are being told they do not need to be in hospital? Because I was told by the psychiatrist that I was being discharged after the Sec.117 meeting, however as the care coordinator objected at the meeting and said she wanted me put on a CTO I was not discharged after all. How easy is it to get the hospital managers to discharge you?

Masked AMHP:

Managers are less likely to discharge than Tribunals.

Debbie:

OK thanks, but if the tribunal fails then is it worth trying?

Masked AMHP:

Normally there is a managers meeting, then if they don't discharge, there is a tribunal. So you get two chances to appeal against Sec.3.

Debbie:

Thanks, I won the tribunal!!!! I got a deferred discharge.

The Nearest Relative of a patient detained under Sec.37/41 writes concerning discharge and aftercare arrangements:

My wife was detained after being sentenced for manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. The offence occurred during a severe depressive episode which came about as a result of a short, intensely stressful, period which cannot be repeated. Since the ‘index offence’ 3 years ago, she has been completely symptom-free.

Before the depression leading to the index offence, her life was settled, stable and secure. I fully support her in all she wants to do. We have a stable and relaxed home life, we have no money worries and have a large and very supportive circle of friends.  Her medication has been refined since she has been in hospital; it is effective and well tolerated and she willingly accepts that she will have to take it for the rest of her life.  We feel that we don’t need support from social services; we don’t need help with housing, medication, money, training, jobs (we are both retired), or with independent living.

As you say in your article, a Sec.117 meeting must be held for patients due to be discharged from s.37. Is this aftercare compulsory?  Can she refuse any Sec.117 help and support?  Would a refusal or rejection of support jeopardise her discharge?

The Masked AMHP replies:

In the specific case of your wife, as she is currently detained under Sec.37/41, she can only be released with the consent of the Home Secretary, and she would be subject to conditional discharge. Although there would still be entitlement to Sec.117 aftercare, to a certain extent this is trumped by the Sec.37/41. Discharge conditions would be likely to include taking medication, seeing her psychiatrist and community social supervisor, as well as other possible conditions, such as residing in a particular place. I would imagine that if she has a supportive environment to return to, this would be a plus for her, and I am sure that discharge plans would take into account what is available for her. However, by the nature of Sec.37/41, any eventual conditions could not be refused.

In time, after reviews, she may be able to be discharged from Sec.37/41.

And finally, two care coordinators ask questions relating to capacity and treatment:

Care coordinator 1:

We currently have a lady who has been in hospital for a year under Sec.3.  Her delusional beliefs have not responded to treatment.  As part of planning for her discharge she has been assessed as not having capacity to decide where she lives. A best interest meeting has been held. We have identified residential placements, but she has refused to even look at them, because of her delusional beliefs.  What authority do we have to move her? A CTO relies on some level of agreement, and she is content to remain where she is, and not accepting of need for any medication or support following discharge.

The Masked AMHP replies:

You could try placing her in a prospective care home under extended Sec.17 leave. That way, it could be argued she is still an inpatient in the hospital in which she seems happy to remain. If she settles, you could then consider a CTO or Guardianship. Alternatively, if she continues to maintain she wants to leave, but it is considered to be in her best interests to remain, you could try a combination of CTO or Guardianship plus possibly a Deprivation of Liberty authorisation.

Care coordinator 2:

I am the care coordinator of a patient recently admitted informally to hospital.  She has a 5 year history of possible paranoid schizophrenia. She has previously been detained under Sec.3 and has in the past been on a CTO.

She does not believe she has a psychotic illness and believes that there are bugs in her flat and possibly implanted in her body. 

I have been working with her since last year; she has been well and in all other areas functioning and capacity are not affected. She is willing to continue on antipsychotic medication as she feels it does benefit her. 

There are discussions about her capacity regarding treatment with some stating that because she denies having schizophrenia/psychosis how can she have capacity to decide what medication she should take. I argue that she accepts psychiatric medication and acknowledges it does help alleviate some of her symptoms. 

I suppose the question is, can have someone have capacity to agree to treatment for a mental illness if they do not believe they have a mental illness? Even if they are given information, understand, can weigh it up and communicate their point of view?

The Masked AMHP replies:

I guess that if the patient accepts that there are benefits to the medication they are taking, even if they deny they have a specific diagnosis, then they could be regarded as having the capacity to agree to treatment. They may on some level or other recognise there is a disorder, even if they do not agree what that is. Even if they lack capacity, if they are amenable to accepting treatment, then I can't see there's a problem.

Consider a hypothetical case of an elderly person with dementia who clearly lacks capacity, but is accepting of medication for both physical and mental problems. If it is in their best interests, then there should not need to be any formal legal framework for treatment, as it can be managed within the guidelines of the Mental Capacity Act.

Anorexia: Persist with Treatment or Allow to Die? Recent Case Law

(Post contains references to weight loss and BMI)

In the last few years there have been a couple of judgments from the Court of Protection relating to the treatment (or otherwise) of women with anorexia. There has now been a third.

Back in 2012 Mr Justice Peter Jackson considered the case of E. I wrote about this judgment here.

Briefly, E was a 32 year old woman suffering from Anorexia Nervosa, Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, and chronic alcohol dependence. She had a Body Mass Index of less than 12 (normal is 20-25). She was in a palliative care setting and was refusing to eat. She had a very long history of anorexia, and had had been subject to many treatment regimes over that time, with little or no success. She was at the point of death. The essential decision the Judge had to make was whether or not further life saving treatment against her will was in her best interests.

The Judge concluded: “The presumption in favour of the preservation of life is not displaced. I declare that E lacks capacity to make decisions about life-sustaining treatment, and that it is lawful and in her best interests for her to be fed, forcibly if necessary.”

This meant that she would continue to be treated, although at least initially under the Mental Capacity Act rather than the Mental Health Act, even though she had often been detained for treatment under the MHA in the past.

In 2014 there was the case of X, which I wrote about here. Her clinical team, far from requesting a decision to impose continuing treatment, were actually asking for declarations to permit them to cease treatment.

Ms.X had a 14 year history of severe anorexia nervosa, complicated by also having alcohol dependence syndrome which had caused chronic and irreversible cirrhosis of the liver. She had had many spells as an inpatient detained under the MHA when she had had forced refeeding. At the time of the judgment, she had a BMI of less than 13.

She seemed in many ways to have a similar presentation to E, but the Judge in her case reached a very different conclusion from the Judge in E’s case, stating that, although “the starting point is a strong presumption that it is in a person's best interests to stay alive … this is not absolute. There are cases where it will not be in a patient's best interests to receive life-sustaining treatment”.

He stated: “I have reached the clear conclusion that I should not compel treatment for Ms X's anorexia.”

Now there has been another Court of Protection judgment ([2016] EWCOP 13) which concerns W, a 28 year old woman with a 20 year history of anorexia nervosa. The Judge in the case of E, Mr Justice Peter Jackson, was again the Judge in this case.

He described her situation thus:

Since the age of 11, she has had six admissions for inpatient treatment, spread between five units around the country and amounting to about 10 years in total.  Her current admission has lasted for 2½ years and yet, despite the most intensive support, she is barely eating and is losing weight at the rate of 500 g – 1 kg per week.  She now weighs less than 30 kg and her BMI is 12.6.  If she continues to lose weight at this rate, she will die.

Despite this, the local health board (the case was in Wales) proposed that W “should now be discharged into the community with a closely thought-out package of support for her and her family. Given W’s fragile condition, it is a plan that has only been arrived at after the most anxious consideration by her care team. It will at first seem counter intuitive that someone so ill should be discharged from hospital. The conventional assumption is that hospital treatment is likely to bring benefits, but the evidence has persuaded me that in this case that is not so.”

The Judge considered a large amount of evidence from psychiatrists and others involved in her care, and also took full account of the views of W’s relatives, as well as speaking to W herself.

The Judge noted that the psychiatrist who offered professional advice to the court on the case “was guarded about any therapeutic intervention turning W’s situation around. At the moment she understands intellectually that her life is already in danger but she is not overly concerned at the prospect.  The history shows that W only eats when her situation deteriorates to such an extent that she actually believes that she might be in imminent danger of death.”

The Judge concluded that it “now has to be accepted that it is beyond the power of doctors or family members, and certainly beyond the power of the court, to bring about an improvement in W’s circumstances or an extension of her life.  The possibility that the withdrawal of inpatient mental health services will bring about a change for the better may not be very great, but in my judgment it is the least worst option from W’s point of view.”

To summarise these cases then: in one it was decided to enforce treatment outside of the Mental Health Act; in the second it was decided to cease all treatment and in effect permit the patient to die; and in the most recent, to cease inpatient treatment in the probably vain hope that the patient might see the error of her ways and start to put weight on again.

In most Court of Protection cases involving threats to the health of people lacking capacity, the issue tends to relate solely to physical interventions for physical problems. These quite often concern surgery to remove gangrenous limbs (there have been a remarkable number of CoP decisions relating to people with complications associated with diabetes, which I might consider in a separate post at some point), or where a pregnant woman lacking capacity needs a caesarean section or other intervention associated with childbirth.

But these three cases all involve people with severe mental illness, who need treatment in order to treat the consequences of their mental disorder. While this treatment may require medical interventions, they arise from mental disorder, and compulsory treatment is permitted by the Code of Practice under the Mental Health Act.

I remain uncomfortable with the concept of using the law, whether it be the Mental Health Act or the Mental Capacity Act, to permit the stopping of life saving treatment, but I also recognise that there may be occasions when diligent clinical teams reach a point at which they can no longer justify continuing treatment, especially when that treatment could be considered unjustifiably invasive and oppressive. I suppose it is then appropriate to ask to courts to adjudicate.

But I also remain uncomfortable with the fact that these three cases are all concerned with women with anorexia nervosa. Having worked with people with anorexia (men as well as women), I know how frustrating it can be to attempt to treat them and effect change in their behaviour. I also know how difficult it can be to establish a balance between the need to provide treatment and the need to respect the human rights of the individual.

Maybe there are times when the right of someone with a severe mental disorder to refuse treatment, even if the consequence is that they will die, must be respected.

Or do these cases say more about the ineffectiveness of current treatments for anorexia?

Guest Blog: Recent case law on moving people lacking capacity from home to other accommodation

This week, I am posting a guest blog. An AMHP has written an interesting analysis of recent case law (Re AG 2015) posing questions relating to the legality or otherwise of moving incapacitous adults.

I am a believer in an independent judiciary and the “rule of law” (ideally providing the laws are to do with creating a fair and just society and protecting individuals though in a democracy I suppose we cannot pick and choose).  I also am aware of (indeed witnessed as a newly qualified social worker prior to the NHS and Community Care Act) past poor practice / abuses where individuals with a variety of disabilities and frail / confused older people were placed in care on the signature of a doctor without the service user’s agreement (or even involvement) and often, or so it seemed,  for the benefit of others (family and professionals) when with a bit of thought and planning people could have been supported at home with home help (remember them?) and other services available at the time.  I would like to think we would not tolerate this now.

However, at our latest AMHP Forum I was made aware of yet another legal ruling (Re AG[2015] EWCOP 78) which will build in the need for further oversight of social work practice where it is stated that “Local Authorities must seek and obtain appropriate judicial authority before moving an incapacitous adult from their home into other accommodation”.

This particular case concerned a 30 year old woman (AG) with a moderate learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder.  There appears to have been a lot going on in this woman’s life from 2007 – 2011.  AG took her own tenancy in 2007 but lived between this and her mother’s home.  In 2011 both made allegations against each other (of physical abuse) and her mother reported tensions at home and difficulties caring for her daughter.  The safeguarding investigation was inconclusive but the plan following on from this was for AG to leave her mother’s home and live in her own home with 24 hour support – which commenced in August 2011.  This quickly broke down with yet more allegations that AG’s mother was physically and emotionally abusing her, her mother said the care staff were providing inadequate care and that the staff said they were being abused physically and verbally by both AG and her mother.  The care provider terminated the contract and AG moved on to a care home in November 2011.

The statement quoted in the second paragraph above is a “final observation” where Sir James Munby is “inclined to agree” with a submission by the barrister acting on behalf of the Official Solicitor (AG’s litigation friend).  He goes on to state that “Local authorities do not themselves have the power to do this (moving an incapacitous adult)”.   At our AMHP Forum it was suggested that this direction would not apply if there were immediate, serious risks which required urgent admission - to a care home for example.  Sir James does not qualify his observation by saying it would be acceptable to move someone without judicial authority if the need was urgent.  The DoLS Code of Practice appears to cover this matter in Chapter 2 where it acknowledges that taking someone to a place where they might be deprived is not covered by an authorisation but that unless the journey is long or the service user needs to be more than restrained (by which I take it to mean sedated) the provisions of the MCA cover this.  Otherwise a court order would be required.

However, I came across this matter in my practice as an AMHP some time ago (2 years at least) where I was asked to see a very confused older man who lived with his wife.  She wanted some respite but he was refusing to go.  The proposed placement was not far (not more than a mile as I recall).  I was asked to assess him with a view to admission to a mental health ward as a way of resolving the issue because under Sec.2 we would have the legal power to convey.  Otherwise I was told a court order would be required which might take time.  He did not need to be in hospital. The respite placement had been arranged and funding secured.  His sons persuaded him to go and may even have resorted to “therapeutic lying” to get him there.  I do not know if a DoLS authorisation was requested but he was home again in 2 weeks.

When I queried this and asked why we were not following the Code I was told that the Official Solicitor was of the view that anything more than the most gentle restraint should not be used.  It seems they took the opportunity of this case to raise this view with the Court of Protection.  Sir James does not – in this judgement at any rate – appear to consider this observation but simply agrees with it.

From my perspective as a practitioner it is potentially even more of an issue than Cheshire West.  Why is judicial authority required in cases where there is no objection from anyone (other than the possibly the service user – which is not to be ignored and I am not aware of people doing so), where the matter is clear cut, where the move may only be a couple of miles and take a few minutes, where a DoLS authorisation will be applied for when the person gets to the home (or may even have been done in advance) and there will be the safeguards from that?

I do understand the probable trauma of moving to and then living in an unfamiliar place for a very confused person.  However, I think we have moved on from the sort of decision making that took place in the early 1990s where moves were agreed quickly and with apparently less thought and assessment than there is now.  Funding will not be agreed – particularly in these times of restricted budgets – unless the move is necessary.

I do accept that there are sometimes situations where supporting someone at home may be more expensive than moving people into care and am aware of cases where, had substantial packages of care been agreed, the service user could have stayed at home.  Getting these packages for older people (65 yrs plus) has been very difficult for some time (not that any local authorities have “policies” about allowing a maximum of 4 visits a day to older people).  However, for straightforward cases why introduce another barrier (as I see it – safeguard as the courts perhaps see it)?

The AG case strikes me as being complex, with a family member objecting to aspects of AG’s care plan (though not the actual conveyance as far as I can see).  However, it also seems that when AG did move into care there was some urgency as otherwise (short of moving home to her mother) she would have been unsupported.  How quickly can judicial authorisation be arranged?  How is it done?   

What about when the out of hours service get a phone call at 3.00am on a Sunday morning from the local A & E because the husband and carer of a very confused and frail 80 year old woman has been admitted in an emergency and she is home alone, there are no family to care for her and we cannot get a care package in place for 48 hours?

Are social workers and other professionals who might be involved in such cases not to be trusted to act reasonably and responsibly at least in urgent situations and where there will have to be a DoLS authorisation (or at least assessment) in due course?

Our local advice is that we have the common law power of necessity if urgent.  If non-resisting (whether urgent or not) we still have the powers noted in the DoLS Code and under Sec.4 Mental Capacity Act if in the person’s best interest and we can evidence that we have complied with Sec.4 as best we can (if urgent).

I would love to hear the reflections of other social workers.  Am I just being over-sensitive?   I am not saying that there should not be judicial authorisation where there are contentious issues with a range of people objecting or where the service user has enough awareness to know what is happening and to benefit from the opportunity to have their voice heard (though I do think social workers listen to and take on board what people say) but where a service user is extremely confused and may well not even be aware of or remember any judicial intervention I find it hard to see the need to introduce yet another hurdle for us to jump over.  

Review: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: A Best Interest Assessor Time Study

Cornwall Council’s much anticipated study, compiled and written by Emma Goodall and Paul Wilkins, was published at the beginning of December 2015.

This has obtained empirical evidence of the impact on BIA’s of the Supreme Court judgment that came out last year (2014). I wrote about this judgment, which it was anticipated would have far reaching effects on the workloads of AMHPs and BIAs, here. Cornwall’s research complements the College of Social Work’s document assessing the impact of this judgment on AMHP practice, about which I wrote here.

So that’s enough of the links for now. What did this Time Study actually find?

Since the Cheshire West Judgment extended the qualifying criteria for incapacitated people who might be in situations where they are being deprived of their liberty, it was thought extremely likely that there would be a huge increase in requests not just for formal assessments under the Mental Health Act, but also for requests for Deprivation of Liberty Authorisations, which have to be undertaken by Best Interest Assessors.

As this report highlights, “The first annual statistics published by the Health & Information Centre in September 2015 reports that there has been a “tenfold increase” in new referrals, with 137,540 DoLS applications received by councils between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015.” I am certainly aware that it is not uncommon for local authorities, who are responsible for conducting these assessment, to have backlogs of 2,000 or more.

The research took the form of asking practicing BIAs via a wide range of social media to complete a questionnaire relating to their practice and experiences. They received responses from a total of 507 BIAs, which I think is a remarkable achievement.

The study focused on the overall time that each assessment took, looking in particular at time taken in traveling, gathering information and consultation prior to and following the assessment, the length of time spent at the hospital obtaining necessary information, consultation with other relevant assessors, writing up the necessary documentation, and giving feedback to interested agencies and individuals.

The study found that the overall average time taken to conduct a DoLS assessment was 726 minutes, or 12.1 hours. This compares with an average of 600 minutes, or 10 hours, that local authorities estimate that an assessment should take. Some of the BIAs in the study reported a considerable discrepancy between the hours what they were paid for, and the actual length of time taken, for example one BIA saying: “I’m paid for 7 hours but each assessment takes at least 11 hours”.

While it may be tempting for local authorities to attempt to quantify the time taken and set a standard timescale for completion of assessments, the study points out that, while DoLS assessments can vary widely in complexity, “in all cases the BIA must involve the relevant person in the assessment process, consult widely and gather information relevant to their decision-making and  provide a report that explains their conclusion and their reasons for it. This work can be time consuming, particularly when there are several consultees or extended travelling times.”

The study also makes the point that BIAs have enormous responsibility in making their assessments, as they can be open to legal challenge.

The Law Commission recently published its consultation document into mental capacity and deprivation of liberty, which I considered here. Among its recommendations, the first of which is the abolition of DoLS as incomprehensible and unworkable, is the proposal to create the Approved Mental Capacity Professional. AMCPs would have more far reaching powers than BIAs, and would carry even greater responsibility.

Were these proposals to be made into law (through amendments to the Mental Health Act), it would be interesting to see the impact both on the work of this new professional compared to the BIA, and the overall bombardment rate of local authorities for people lacking capacity. 

Law Commission Publishes Consultation Paper on Mental Capacity & DoLS

On 7^th July 2015, the Law Commission released its long awaited consultation paper on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty. It makes very interesting reading, and suggests sweeping changes to the whole process of the management of people who lack capacity, and makes some recommendations that would require significant changes to the Mental Health Act.

One of the encouraging things about this document is that it weighs in to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and has hardly anything good to say about them, quoting a wide range of eminent sources criticising its ““bewildering complexity”, with Mr Justice Charles saying that writing a judgement on a DoLS case was “as if you have been in a washing machine and spin dryer”.

As the paper says, referring to DoLS:

In March 2014 two events inflicted significant damage. First, the House of Lords post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Mental Capacity Act published a report which, amongst other matters, concluded that the DoLS were not “fit for purpose” and proposed their replacement. A few days later, a Supreme Court judgment widened the definition of deprivation of liberty to a considerable extent. The practical implications have been significant for the public image of the DoLS, and the regime has struggled to cope with the increased number of cases. (1.6)

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards should be replaced by a new system called “protective care"

The paper makes the important point that:

The DoLS assume that nursing staff and care workers on the ground can identify and respond to deprivations of liberty. Yet this requires an assessment of a highly technical question of fact and law which is ultimately to be decided by the Strasbourg court. The concept of deprivation of liberty continues to cause disagreement amongst lawyers, academics and – as witnessed in Cheshire West – Supreme Court justices. The result is that “care providers, insofar as they think about DoLS at all, seem to perceive it as a technical legal solution to a technical legal problem” and not something that will benefit the relevant person in any tangible way. Reports have shown that in care homes knowledge of, and confidence in, the DoLS is limited, and managers and staff are heavily reliant on their local authority to identify potential deprivations of liberty amongst residents. (2.15)

As if that were not enough to sound the death knell of the DoLS, the paper goes on to say:

Terms such as “standard authorisations”, “managing authority” and “supervisory body” have been described variously as cumbersome, Orwellian, and failing to reflect modern health and social care functions. Particular criticism has been directed at the label “Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards”.

It does not come as a surprise, then, to find that one of the first recommendations the paper makes is that “the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards should be replaced by a new system called “protective care”. It recommends that this should include hospitals, care homes, supported living, and even “shared lives and domestic accommodation.”

The paper makes a distinction between “supportive care” and “protective care.” While “protective care” would replace the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and would also be extended to include anyone aged 16 or over, “supportive care” “is intended to provide suitable protection for people who are in a vulnerable position, but not yet subject to restrictive forms of care and treatment (including deprivation of liberty). In other words, it is intended to establish a preventive set of safeguards that reduce the need for intrusive interventions in the longer term.”(6.2)

Supportive care would apply where someone is living in a care home, supported living or shared lives accommodation, and also if a move into such accommodation is being considered. However, the whole point of supportive care is “to authorise preventive forms of care and support, such as enhanced assessment and care planning oversight procedures – and would not authorise a deprivation of liberty”. (6.12)

The role of the Best Interests Assessor will be abolished, and replaced by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional.

Where deprivation of liberty is being considered, but outside the current parameters of the Mental Health Act, a proposed “restrictive care and treatment scheme” would come into play. But crucially: “it is not organised around deprivation of liberty. Instead it looks at whether care and treatment arrangements are becoming sufficiently intrusive or restrictive to justify enhanced formal safeguards. This will include those deprived of liberty, but will also include some whose arrangements fall short of this”.

This is where one of the major changes to the existing arrangements is being proposed. The role of the Best Interests Assessor will be abolished, and replaced by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional. These “Approved Mental Capacity Professionals” would be “in the same position legally as Approved Mental Health Professionals. In other words, they will be acting as independent decision-makers on behalf of the local authority.”(7.104)

These AMCPs would have powers and duties which appear to be even more wide ranging than those of the AMHP. They would be involved in assessing and reviewing people subject to restrictive care and treatment, who would be people defined as lacking “decision-making capacity as a result of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.” AMCPs would be required to arrange for the assessment of such people “to be undertaken by a person already involved in the person’s care (eg the person’s social worker or nurse) and quality assure the outcome of that assessment or oversee or facilitate the assessment; or undertake the assessment themselves.”

Other tasks of the AMCP would include ensuring that decision-making processes and care arrangements comply with the Care Act, the Mental Capacity Act and other regulations, that there are regular review meetings, and that the person has an advocate and appropriate person to take care of their interests. Where someone is subject to restrictive care and treatment, the AMCP would even be required to specify the duration “which may not exceed 12 months.” They would even have discretion to discharge the individual from such a regime.

Where people who are in a hospital setting, they would be able to be deprived of their liberty for up to 28 days; but if such deprivation continued beyond that, then an AMCP would have to agree to this.

The paper suggests that the Mental Health Act definition of mental disorder, broad though it is, would not be used for these cases, stating that “people with a pure brain injury and those dependent on alcohol or drugs should not be excluded automatically from the benefits of supportive care.”

We are attracted to the approach taken under the Mental Health Act whereby decision-making is more coherently and clearly defined than under the DoLS

Their proposals would obviate the need to go to the High Court for cases currently excluded by the MHA, which includes “people in a persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state caused by a concussion or brain injury, or someone suffering from a stroke or locked in syndrome.”

The writers of this paper state that “we are attracted to the approach taken under the Mental Health Act whereby decision-making is more coherently and clearly defined than under the DoLS. They go on to say:

We have considered several options for the interface between our scheme and the Mental Health Act. First, we could retain and clarify the existing interface. In doing so, it is important to emphasise that we would not wish to preserve the current drafting of schedule 1A, which is widely viewed as impenetrable. (10.17)

The paper therefore makes a proposal that the MHA should be amended. This is in order to establish “a formal process for the admission of people who lack capacity and who are not objecting to their care and treatment.” This would place such people within the safeguards already available to patients subject to the MHA, and would importantly include the right to appeal to a mental health tribunal.

I’ve necessarily only skimmed the surface of this extensive paper, which runs to 230 pages (although you can read the 12 page summary), picking out proposoals and recommendations particularly close to my heart. But there is a great deal to like in these proposals, which go a long way to addressing the deficiencies of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in particular. I also like the fact that they recognise the Mental Health Act as being a good place for these changes to reside.

However, this is a consultation paper. The final proposals for changes in the law may be quite different. Not least is the impact of the Conservative Government’s plans to scrap or reform the Human Rights Act, and the fact that many of the proposals are designed to address issues raised by recent case law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is far from clear whether the current government is concerned enough about human rights in general to spend much time legislating to reform and extend the rights of people who lack capacity.

Important Guidance from The College of Social Work on the Impact of Cheshire West on AMHP Practice

The College of Social Work has just issued The Impact on AMHP Practice and Service Delivery by The Supreme Court Judgment on Deprivation of Liberty: P v Cheshire West and P & Q v Surrey County Council.

This was authored by the eminent Emad Lilo, who is Vice Chair of TCSW AMHP Community and works as AMHP practice lead at Mersey Care Foundation Trust. He is well known for producing extraordinary annual social care conferences, some of which I have reported on this blog.

This is an important document for two reasons.

The first is that it is quite probably the last document The College of Social Work will ever issue, as the Government in their wisdom has seen fit to withdraw funding from TCSW with the consequence that the organisation will cease to exist by September.

The second reason is that it provides important guidance for Approved Mental Health Professionals, Best Interests Assessors and their employers on how to negotiate the minefield that is the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a judgement, P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19, which attempted to clarify when and how deprivations of liberty might arise for people lacking mental capacity.

Lady Hale in the judgement offered a simple “Acid Test” to assist in determining whether someone suffered a Deprivation of Liberty. It revolved around two facts: that the person is not “free to leave”, and that they are subject to continuous supervision and control. She recommends that professionals should “err on the side of caution” when reaching a decision regarding potential deprivation of liberty, which means that AMHPs and BIAs should ensure they use their respective powers in such cases.

These powers are essentially: to detain the patient under the MHA, to obtain an authorisation under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, or if there is no other route, to obtain an order from either the Court of Protection or via the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

You can read more about  the Cheshire West judgement on my blog here.

TCSW surveyed 24 AMHP service providers across England and Wales in order to find out the impact that this Supreme Court decision had had on:

·         AMHP practice and the use of the Mental Health Act

·         The use of DoLS or MHA or MCA for admitting incapacitated patients to a mental health unit

·         The use of DoLS or MHA or MCA for the provision of care/treatment to incapacitated patients already in a mental health unit

·         What training/guidance is or should be made available to improve practice including effective and lawful implementation of the judgment

As a result of this survey, the report makes a number of recommendations in order to ensure that all professionals and organisations working with people who are mentally incapacitated are practicing within the law and the spirit of the legislation.

The report also provides some useful grids and flowcharts to assist in making decisions regarding the use of the Mental Health Act or DoLS.

All but one service provider reported an increase in the burden of work carried out by AMHPs. One respondent noted:
“We have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of MHA assessments being requested, and the number of patients being detained as a direct consequence of the CW ruling.”

There has also been a corresponding increase in the level of requests for authorisations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. A respondent noted:
“The dedicated BIA team has been expanded by recruitment of extra BIAs and admin staff as this is the main point of contact for inquiries. Despite these increases the BIA service cannot adequately respond to the increase in contact and demand.”

The report observes:
“The situation appears to be more challenging for certain local authorities where a large proportion of their Best Interests Assessors for DoLS are drawn from the AMHP service. The levels of activity have led to unprecedented pressure on already limited and stretched AMHP provision across the country.”

The report also contains extensive discussion of the implications of the Cheshire West judgement in context of the new Code of Practice, and also examines the Law Society guidance issued on behalf of Department of Health.

The MHA Code of Practice was revised subsequent to the Cheshire West judgement. It must therefore be concluded that the writers of the revised Code had the judgement in mind.

Nevertheless, the Code contains some potentially alarming recommendations. For example, it states that "a person who lacks capacity to consent to being accommodated in a hospital for care and/or treatment for mental disorder and who is likely to be deprived of their liberty should never be informally admitted to hospital (whether they are content to be admitted or not)."(13.53)

A consequence of this would appear to be that the MHA is almost invariably going to be used when someone lacking capacity needs to be admitted to hospital.

However, Professor Richard Jones, author not only of the Mental Health Act Manual but also the Mental Capacity Act Manual, stated, “In my opinion, compliant mentally incapacitated patients can continue to be admitted informally under the authority of ss.5 and 6 of the MCA.  After admission, they can be assessed to see whether they satisfy the Acid Test. In any event, I do not see how the use of the MHA can be justified in anticipation of a possible future deprivation of liberty.”

Neil Allen, a Barrister at 39 Essex Street Chambers and lecturer at Manchester University went on to say: “If I lack capacity and need to be admitted to a psychiatric ward to treat my mental disorder, if I object or would object if able to, use the MHA. If I am non-objecting, use MCA 5-6 to take me there and urgent DOLS with request for standard DOLS…. In deciding whether I object or would object, if in doubt Code says err on the side of caution (i.e. consider me to be objecting).”

The report also looks at the Law Society guidance. In connection with conveyance, this states:

“Transporting a person who lacks capacity from their home, or another location to a hospital by ambulance in an emergency will not usually amount to a deprivation of liberty. In almost all cases, it is likely that a person can be lawfully taken to a hospital or care home by ambulance under the wider provisions of the Act, as long as it is considered that being in the hospital or care home will be in their best interests.”

I pick out these particular quotes as in my work as an AMHP and also having responsibility for triaging MHA assessment requests for my local authority, I am always keen to adhere to the MHA Code of Practice’s first principle, which is to use the least restrictive option wherever possible. I am therefore reluctant to use the powers of detention under the MHA if there are alternatives, including use of the MCA for people who lack capacity.

The report makes a range of recommendations, including that AMHPs need to be familiar with the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and need to be familiar with the key points from the Cheshire West judgment, that local authorities should increase the number of AMHPs to cope with the increased demand, that there needs to be additional training on the MHA Code of Practice, and that “hospitals, local authorities and care homes must work together locally to raise awareness and improve understanding of the MCA more widely and embed it in the health and social care culture.”

This review can necessarily only outline what is contained in this important document. There is so much that is of relevance to professional decision making that I recommend all AMHPs, BIAs and others professionally involved with making decisions on behalf of people lacking capacity should read it in full.