英国对决策指导的支持:一个务实的回顾。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
Jillian Craigie, Antonia Alley, Maria Teresa Cotrufo, Michael Bach, Jodie Rawles, Isabel C H Clare, Matt Matravers, Francesca Happé
{"title":"英国对决策指导的支持:一个务实的回顾。","authors":"Jillian Craigie, Antonia Alley, Maria Teresa Cotrufo, Michael Bach, Jodie Rawles, Isabel C H Clare, Matt Matravers, Francesca Happé","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwaf021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Law and policy concerning personal decision-making increasingly recognizes a role for support to enable greater autonomy and legal recognition for adults whose decision-making ability may be limited. Support for decision making (SFDM) is embedded in England and Wales under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). It has also gained traction internationally through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which the UK is a signatory. However, these two legal reference points diverge in their understanding of SFDM, which presents challenges for putting it into practice. A pragmatic review methodology identified 40 resources containing SFDM guidance, providing insight into its implementation and conceptualization in England. An analysis indicates the need for authoritative guidance that provides more multifaceted advice, recognizing key variables including: the nature of the decision, source of decision-making difficulties, and the relationship of the supporter. Gaps in guidance provision are also identified for decision-makers, third parties, and the mental health context. The resources largely conceptualize SFDM as a means to enable mental capacity. However, recent developments propose a CRPD-aligned approach that includes SFDM in the context of substituted decisions. This generates a dualistic model of SFDM in England, raising new questions in this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"33 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12313013/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Support for decision-making guidance in England: a pragmatic review.\",\"authors\":\"Jillian Craigie, Antonia Alley, Maria Teresa Cotrufo, Michael Bach, Jodie Rawles, Isabel C H Clare, Matt Matravers, Francesca Happé\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/medlaw/fwaf021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Law and policy concerning personal decision-making increasingly recognizes a role for support to enable greater autonomy and legal recognition for adults whose decision-making ability may be limited. Support for decision making (SFDM) is embedded in England and Wales under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). It has also gained traction internationally through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which the UK is a signatory. However, these two legal reference points diverge in their understanding of SFDM, which presents challenges for putting it into practice. A pragmatic review methodology identified 40 resources containing SFDM guidance, providing insight into its implementation and conceptualization in England. An analysis indicates the need for authoritative guidance that provides more multifaceted advice, recognizing key variables including: the nature of the decision, source of decision-making difficulties, and the relationship of the supporter. Gaps in guidance provision are also identified for decision-makers, third parties, and the mental health context. The resources largely conceptualize SFDM as a means to enable mental capacity. However, recent developments propose a CRPD-aligned approach that includes SFDM in the context of substituted decisions. This generates a dualistic model of SFDM in England, raising new questions in this area.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"volume\":\"33 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12313013/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf021\",\"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/fwaf021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于个人决策的法律和政策日益认识到一种支助作用,使决策能力可能有限的成年人获得更大的自主权和法律承认。根据《2005年精神能力法》(MCA),支持决策(SFDM)在英格兰和威尔士得到了落实。它还通过联合国残疾人权利公约(CRPD)在国际上获得了牵引力,英国是该公约的签署国。然而,这两个法律参考点在对SFDM的理解上存在分歧,这为将其付诸实践带来了挑战。一种实用的审查方法确定了包含SFDM指导的40种资源,为其在英国的实施和概念化提供了见解。一项分析表明,需要权威的指导,提供更多方面的建议,认识到关键的变量,包括:决策的性质、决策困难的来源和支持者的关系。还确定了决策者、第三方和精神卫生环境在提供指导方面的差距。这些资源在很大程度上将SFDM概念化为一种提高心智能力的手段。然而,最近的发展提出了一种与crpd一致的方法,在替代决策的背景下包括SFDM。这在英国产生了SFDM的二元模型,在这一领域提出了新的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Support for decision-making guidance in England: a pragmatic review.

Law and policy concerning personal decision-making increasingly recognizes a role for support to enable greater autonomy and legal recognition for adults whose decision-making ability may be limited. Support for decision making (SFDM) is embedded in England and Wales under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). It has also gained traction internationally through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which the UK is a signatory. However, these two legal reference points diverge in their understanding of SFDM, which presents challenges for putting it into practice. A pragmatic review methodology identified 40 resources containing SFDM guidance, providing insight into its implementation and conceptualization in England. An analysis indicates the need for authoritative guidance that provides more multifaceted advice, recognizing key variables including: the nature of the decision, source of decision-making difficulties, and the relationship of the supporter. Gaps in guidance provision are also identified for decision-makers, third parties, and the mental health context. The resources largely conceptualize SFDM as a means to enable mental capacity. However, recent developments propose a CRPD-aligned approach that includes SFDM in the context of substituted decisions. This generates a dualistic model of SFDM in England, raising new questions in this area.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信