书评:《在与作者的对话中探索心智能力法的空间》:心智能力法空间:超越二进制

Q2 Social Sciences
R. Reed-Berendt, B. Clough
{"title":"书评:《在与作者的对话中探索心智能力法的空间》:心智能力法空间:超越二进制","authors":"R. Reed-Berendt, B. Clough","doi":"10.1177/09685332231172331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 provides the legal framework to determine whether an adult lacks capacity to make a decision for themselves, and if they do, what course of action should be taken in accordance with their best interests.1 The MCA purports to empower adults with ‘mental impairments, or disturbances in the functioning of the mind or brain’, to take decisions for themselves, and to protect them where they are unable to do so. Yet, the powers that the Act grants to its decisionmakers are significant, and under the auspices of best interests, individuals deemed to lack capacity may see care arrangements made for them which deprive of them of their liberty, or treatment imposed on them against their wishes. The operation of the MCA has attracted criticism for its failure to recognise the relational nature of human decisionmaking,2 the prevailing dominance of medical decision-makers,3 and its focus on the lives or persons with disabilities. Clough’s book4 adds to this growing body of feminist and disability scholarship by analysing mental capacity law through the lens of assemblages. This focuses on the conceptual spaces and context of mental capacity law, the norms that are created and/or reinforced through it, and the impact on the individuals that capacity law affects. In each chapter, the book calls attention to the binaries which the legislation relies upon and how they are reinforced in its interpretation and application. Clough forcefully argues that","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"189 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book review: Exploring the Spaces of Mental Capacity Law In Conversation with the Author: The Space of Mental Capacity Law: Moving Beyond Binaries\",\"authors\":\"R. Reed-Berendt, B. Clough\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09685332231172331\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 provides the legal framework to determine whether an adult lacks capacity to make a decision for themselves, and if they do, what course of action should be taken in accordance with their best interests.1 The MCA purports to empower adults with ‘mental impairments, or disturbances in the functioning of the mind or brain’, to take decisions for themselves, and to protect them where they are unable to do so. Yet, the powers that the Act grants to its decisionmakers are significant, and under the auspices of best interests, individuals deemed to lack capacity may see care arrangements made for them which deprive of them of their liberty, or treatment imposed on them against their wishes. The operation of the MCA has attracted criticism for its failure to recognise the relational nature of human decisionmaking,2 the prevailing dominance of medical decision-makers,3 and its focus on the lives or persons with disabilities. Clough’s book4 adds to this growing body of feminist and disability scholarship by analysing mental capacity law through the lens of assemblages. This focuses on the conceptual spaces and context of mental capacity law, the norms that are created and/or reinforced through it, and the impact on the individuals that capacity law affects. In each chapter, the book calls attention to the binaries which the legislation relies upon and how they are reinforced in its interpretation and application. Clough forcefully argues that\",\"PeriodicalId\":39602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law International\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"189 - 199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231172331\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231172331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在英格兰和威尔士,2005年《精神能力法》(MCA)提供了一个法律框架,以确定一个成年人是否缺乏为自己做决定的能力,如果他们有,应该根据他们的最大利益采取什么行动《MCA》旨在赋予有“精神障碍或心智或大脑功能紊乱”的成年人自主决策的权利,并在他们无法这样做时保护他们。然而,该法赋予决策者的权力是重大的,在最佳利益的支持下,被认为缺乏能力的个人可能会看到为他们作出的护理安排剥夺了他们的自由,或违背他们的意愿强加给他们的治疗。MCA的运作受到了批评,因为它没有认识到人的决策的关系性质2,医疗决策者的普遍主导地位3,以及它对残疾人生活或人的关注。克拉夫的书通过集合的视角分析了心理能力法,为女权主义和残疾研究增添了新的内容。本课程主要关注心理能力法的概念空间和背景,通过心理能力法创建和/或加强的规范,以及心理能力法对个人的影响。在每一章中,本书都提请注意立法所依赖的二进制,以及它们如何在其解释和应用中得到加强。克拉夫有力地论证了这一点
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book review: Exploring the Spaces of Mental Capacity Law In Conversation with the Author: The Space of Mental Capacity Law: Moving Beyond Binaries
In England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 provides the legal framework to determine whether an adult lacks capacity to make a decision for themselves, and if they do, what course of action should be taken in accordance with their best interests.1 The MCA purports to empower adults with ‘mental impairments, or disturbances in the functioning of the mind or brain’, to take decisions for themselves, and to protect them where they are unable to do so. Yet, the powers that the Act grants to its decisionmakers are significant, and under the auspices of best interests, individuals deemed to lack capacity may see care arrangements made for them which deprive of them of their liberty, or treatment imposed on them against their wishes. The operation of the MCA has attracted criticism for its failure to recognise the relational nature of human decisionmaking,2 the prevailing dominance of medical decision-makers,3 and its focus on the lives or persons with disabilities. Clough’s book4 adds to this growing body of feminist and disability scholarship by analysing mental capacity law through the lens of assemblages. This focuses on the conceptual spaces and context of mental capacity law, the norms that are created and/or reinforced through it, and the impact on the individuals that capacity law affects. In each chapter, the book calls attention to the binaries which the legislation relies upon and how they are reinforced in its interpretation and application. Clough forcefully argues that
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 International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信