Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-01T05:58:08.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deprivation of liberty in hospital: the MHA versus DoLS dilemma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2024

Jeremy Cave Open the ORCID record for Jeremy Cave [Opens in a new window] ,
Alex Ruck Keene  and
Matthew Lowe
Jeremy Cave*
Affiliation:
Specialty registrar in general and older adult psychiatry (Specialty Trainee Year 5, ST5) with the Psychological Medicine Service, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK.
Alex Ruck Keene
Affiliation:
Specialist mental capacity barrister at 39 Essex Chambers in London, UK. He is also a visiting professor at King's College London, UK, and a visiting senior lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Matthew Lowe
Affiliation:
Consultant liaison psychiatrist with the Psychological Medicine Service, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK. He is the Core Psychiatry Training Programme Director for Thames Valley Deanery, Oxford, UK.
*
Correspondence Jeremy Cave. Email: jeremy.cave@berkshire.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

When admitting patients to hospital and treating them, psychiatrists and other health professionals may need to deprive them of their liberty. Where this occurs, professionals will need to work within a statutory framework to practice legally and protect their patients’ right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Within England and Wales, some clinical scenarios will require a choice to be made between the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and its Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This choice can be complex, is often overlooked and frequently misunderstood in clinical practice. Deciding between the two frameworks must be done on a case-specific basis. With the use of code of practice guidelines, case law and an unfolding clinical scenario we aim in this article to support clinicians in taking a clear-sighted approach to the dilemma and the factors to consider when deciding between the two regimes.

Keywords

Psychiatry and lawethicshuman rightsconsent and capacityeducation and training
Type
Article
Information
BJPsych Advances , First View , pp. 1 - 10
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Adshead, G, Cave, J (2021) An introduction to clinical ethics in psychiatry. BJPsych Advances, 27: 20–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, C, Lee-Davey, J, Lee, T, et al (2024) Mental capacity in practice part 1: how do we really assess capacity? BJPsych Advances, 30: 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clare, I, Redley, M, Keeling, A, et al (2013) Understanding the Interface Between the Mental Capacity Act's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (MCA-DoLS) and the Mental Health Act (MHA). Cambridge Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities Research Group, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Department for, Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice. The Stationery Office (TSO).Google Scholar
Department of Health (2015) Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice. The Stationery Office (TSO).Google Scholar
Gilburt, H (2021) Understanding Clinical Decision-Making at the Interface of the Mental Health Act (1983) and the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The King's Fund.Google Scholar
Jones, R (2007) Deprivations of liberty: Mental Health Act or Mental Capacity Act? Journal of Mental Health Law, 16: 170–3.Google Scholar
McKillop, M, Dawson, J, Szmukler, G (2011) The concept of objection under the DOLS regime. Journal of Mental Health Law, 21: 61–73.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2008) Mental Capacity Act 2005: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Code of Practice. The Stationery Office (TSO).Google Scholar
Ruck Keene, A (2013) AM v (1) South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust & (2) The Secretary of State for Health. 39 Essex Chambers (https://www.39essex.com/information-hub/case/am-v-1-south-london-maudsley-nhs-foundation-trust-2-secretary-state-health).Google Scholar
Ruck Keene, A, Allen, N, Butler-Cole, V, et al (2019) Deprivation of Liberty in the Hospital Setting. 39 Essex Chambers (https://www.39essex.com/sites/default/files/Deprivation-of-liberty-in-the-hospital-setting-November-2019.pdf).Google Scholar
Sorinmade, O, Ruck Keene, A, Moylan, L (2015) Addressing the conundrum: the MCA or the MHA? Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management, 21: 31–6.Google Scholar
Wessely, S (2018) Modernising the Mental Health Act: Increasing Choice, Reducing Compulsion. Final Report of the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983. UK Department of Health and Social Care (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6596a7ed915d045f37798c/Modernising_the_Mental_Health_Act_-_increasing_choice__reducing_compulsion.pdf).Google Scholar
A PCT v LDV [2013] EWHC 272 (Fam).Google Scholar
AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust & The Secretary of State for Health [2013] UKUT 365 (AAC).Google Scholar
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19.Google Scholar
DN v Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKUT 327 (AAC).Google Scholar
GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam).Google Scholar
HL v The United Kingdom (Application no. 45508/99) [2004] ECHR 471 (5 October 2004).Google Scholar
Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v JS & Others [2023] EWCOP 33.Google Scholar
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v ML [2014] EWCOP 2.Google Scholar
R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust [1998] 3 All ER 289.Google Scholar
A PCT v LDV [2013] EWHC 272 (Fam).Google Scholar
AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust & The Secretary of State for Health [2013] UKUT 365 (AAC).Google Scholar
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19.Google Scholar
DN v Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKUT 327 (AAC).Google Scholar
GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam).Google Scholar
HL v The United Kingdom (Application no. 45508/99) [2004] ECHR 471 (5 October 2004).Google Scholar
Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v JS & Others [2023] EWCOP 33.Google Scholar
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v ML [2014] EWCOP 2.Google Scholar
R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust [1998] 3 All ER 289.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cave et al. supplementary material

Cave et al. supplementary material
Download Cave et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.5 KB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.