This chapter will explore how the provisions governing best interests assessments ought to be reformed so as to better ensure that an agent’s authentic desires are being prioritised in decisions being taken about them. The starting point should be that the assessor ascertains ‘so far is reasonably practicable’ the individual’s wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values. This should then be supplemented by a presumption that the agent’s wishes and feelings will be determinative of what is in their best interests, except when giving effect to them will expose the person to a risk of significant harm. Even where the harms are significant, however, there will still be occasions where the agent’s wishes and feelings should nonetheless take precedence; where to do otherwise would involve frustrating their deeply and authentically held beliefs, values, or commitments. This chapter will highlight some of the potential considerations which ought to guide assessors in these circumstances. It will propose that assessors be provided with a list of factors that they must take into account when determining the degree of weight to be ascribed to the agent’s wishes, which reflect these considerations.

The foregoing discussion has highlighted the fundamental fragility of assessments of capacity, which hinge on a series of complex yet unavoidable clinical judgements about the person’s cognitive capacities and the origins of the beliefs or values that motivate their decision. This chapter will explore the implications of this for best interests assessments and, in particular, the extent to which due weight is currently being given to the person’s authentically held values and beliefs in the assessment of their best interests. Drawing on case law, interviews, and post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act, it will conclude that despite a number of empowering court decisions, the lack of direction contained in the Act on how to apply the MCA has still resulted in different weight being attributed to the agent’s wishes. Moreover, the trend towards greater empowerment has not yet trickled down to decisions being taken on the ground by doctors and care workers, which still remain characterised largely by paternalism and risk aversion. Those undertaking best interests assessments could therefore benefit from a more unified starting point and greater clarity on the factors which ought to influence the degree of weight accorded to the individual’s wishes.

Catalogues the most common category of federal impeachments, that of federal judges. Describes all judicial impeachments and discusses the arguably different standard of impeachable conduct for judges.

A second interlude introducing the 25th Amendment mechanism for removing a president who is incapable of performing his duties, and explaining unsuccessful initiatives to apply the 25th Amendment to Donald Trump.

We have a choice of when and how to plan. We can choose to plan proactively or reactively. Optimal time to start is when you are young and healthy. Studies show a direct correlation between the quality of life of those who are suffering from illness or incapacity and their level of planning. Creating a clear and comprehensive plan is a gift to your loved ones. Estate planning is too important to be considered a “do-it-yourself” project. Principal estate planning documents explained: 1. Last Will and Testament. 2. Trust. 3. Power of Attorney. 4. Health Care Proxy. 5. Living Will. Chapter give strategies on the best estate planning through the decades.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts concerned the difficult problem of defining the quantum of intoxication abrogates a person’s ability to consent to sex. The jury convicted a police officer, who was summoned to assist a highly intoxicated person, of rape of that person. However, the high court overturned the conviction, holding that the “wholly insensible” test was too vague to support a legal conviction. Notably, the court offered no alternative to the rejected test, essentially leaving the state without any rule about the degree of intoxication or other incapacitation abrogates consent.

The idea of capacity is central to Godwin’s political theory. In spite of his assurance that equality is unrelated to physical or intellectual ability, Godwin makes individual and social liberty contingent upon the types of contributions one’s capacities allow. His political system inevitably produces exceptions (those who do not or cannot contribute to the general good) for which he needs to devise additional measures. People who lack the right kinds of mental and physical capacities prove to be an intractable difficulty. In his fiction, Godwin centralizes the idea that the mind should work in concert with the body, and sees incapacity in either of these as socially and personally problematic. We see this in his repeated use of automata, dolls, and characters who disengage from their bodies in various ways; and in his fictional use of rejuvenation and cure. Godwin speculates that when reason governs society, illness and incapacity will no longer be present. His attitude towards deformity is quite separate from his views on capacity. Deformity, in Godwin’s fiction, is usually a visual sign of an evil character, and he does not articulate the prodigious phase of disability.