Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:56:10.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy and safeguards in people with impaired decision-making abilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John Morgan
John Morgan*
Affiliation:
Slade Hospital Resource Centre, Horspath Driftway, Headington, Oxford OX3 7JH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In everyday life we all make choices and decisions with regard to ourselves and our environment. Such decisions may be quite trivial, for example which pair of trousers we should wear, or major, for example to move home. The freedom to make such decisions may be called the right to self-determination or autonomy. For adults, such a right is recognised by the law, either explicitly as in USA or more implicitly as here in the United Kingdom. Such a right is also partially acknowledged in children although if the child or young person is not capable of making a reasoned decision then the parent or guardian may make the decision on their behalf. Some adults through mental disability (mental illness, mental handicap) have a diminished ability to make reasoned decisions. However, it is important to recognise that in any given situation there should be an assessment of the person's ability to make a reasoned decision and assumptions not made for convenience's sake. Even people with substantial intellectual impairment are capable of making some decisions.

Type
Articles
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 14 , Issue 10 , October 1990 , pp. 603 - 607
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1990

References

Bicknell, J. (1989) Consent and people with mental handicap. British Medical Journal, 299, 1176–1177.Google Scholar
Carson, D. (ed) (1987) Making the Most of the Court of Protection. Kings Fund Project Paper No. 71. London: King Edward's Hospital Fund for London.Google Scholar
Cooke, L. (1990) Abuse of mentally handicapped adults. British Medical Journal, 300, 193.Google Scholar
O'Brien, J. (1987) A guide to lifestyle planning: using the Activities Catalogue to integrate services and natural support systems. In A Comprehensive Guide to Activities Catalogue: An Alternative Curriculum for Youths and Adults with Severe Disabilities, (eds. Wilcox, B. W. & Bellamy, G. T.) Baltimore, North Maryland. USA: Paul H. Brooker.Google Scholar
Sang, R. & O'Brien, J. (1984) Advocacy, the UK and American Experience. Kings Fund Project Paper No. 51 London: King Edward's Hospital Fund for London.Google Scholar
Secretaries of State for Health & Social Security, Wales and Scotland (1989) Caring for People. Community Care in the next decade and beyond. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
The Law Society's Mental Health Sub-Committee. January 1989. Decision Making and Mental Incapacity. A discussion document.Google Scholar
T v T (1988) 2 WLR 189; F v West Berkshire Health Authority (1988) The Times, 8 December.Google Scholar
Wolfensburger, W. (1983) Social Role Valorization: a proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation, 21, 234–239.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.