2014British Journal of NursingRequires access

Mental capacity and mental health acts part 3: deprivation of liberty

Richard Griffith

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Following the introduction of the deprivation of liberty safeguards, the courts initially insisted that a deprivation of liberty for the treatment of a mental disorder was authorised under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983 as it had primacy in matters concerning mental disorder (GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009]). The courts later refined that approach to primacy and accepted that, where appropriate, decision makers could use either the Mental Health Act 1983 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards to authorise a deprivation of liberty for the treatment of a mental disorder. In this third article on the interface between the Mental Health Act 1983 and Mental Capacity Act 2005, the author considers when it would be necessary to detain an adult who lacked capacity under the Mental Health Act 1983 instead of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Following the introduction of the deprivation of liberty safeguards, the courts initially insisted that a deprivation of liberty for the treatment of a mental disorder was authorised under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983 as it had primacy in matters concerning mental disorder (GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009]). The courts later refined that approach to primacy and accepted that, where appropriate, decision makers could use either the Mental Health Act 1983 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards to authorise a deprivation of liberty for the treatment of a mental disorder. In this third article on the interface between the Mental Health Act 1983 and Mental Capacity Act 2005, the author considers when it would be necessary to detain an adult who lacked capacity under the Mental Health Act 1983 instead of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Following the introduction of the deprivation of liberty safeguards, the courts initially insisted that a deprivation of liberty for the treatment of a mental disorder was authorised under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983 as it had primacy in matters concerning mental disorder (GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009]). The courts later refined that approach to primacy and accepted that, where appropriate, decision makers could use either the Mental Health Act 1983 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards to authorise a deprivation of liberty for the treatment of a mental disorder. In this third article on the interface between the Mental Health Act 1983 and Mental Capacity Act 2005, the author considers when it would be necessary to detain an adult who lacked capacity under the Mental Health Act 1983 instead of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Key concepts: Mental capacity, Mental health, Mental Health Act, Mental health law, Diminished responsibility, Psychology, Mental illness, Psychiatry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Mental capacity and mental health acts part 3: deprivation of liberty — Research Paper | ScholarLens