Site icon QPM | National Development Team for Inclusion

Guest Blog: The Mental Capacity Maze

Jane Kingston, Senior Advocacy Coordinator at  Advocacy Centre North asks the question “Can future planning be a Best Interest Serious Medical Treatment if it’s not time and decision specific?”

As advocates we welcome approaches from professionals to involve our services. However, there are some unusual expectations on the advocacy role.  A recent request to an advocacy service for IMCA support with NHS Emergency Health and Care Plans (EHCP) has opened a debate in the sector to ensure we are all compliant with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. EHCP documents and  the step by step care needed during and after an anticipated emergency, makes communication easier in the event of a healthcare emergency (this accompanies rather than replaces a DNAR order).

So, we all know that an IMCA is instructed for Best Interest decisions over Serious Medical Treatments. A Best Interest decision applies to a person assessed as lacking the mental capacity to decide themselves in a specific situation (after practicable steps have been taken to support them making their own decision) and it must be time and decision specific. So, by definition this makes a future care plan difficult to define as time and decision-specific Serious Medical Treatment, which is defined as:

treatment which involves giving new treatment, stopping treatment that has already started or withholding treatment that could be offered in circumstances where:

Some advocacy services take such referrals and others do not. This request is throwing up the following questions:

We’d love to hear your thoughts and get the debate flowing – please share this article or send your thoughts to advocacy@ndti.org.uk and jane.kingston@cvsnewcastle.org.uk

Exit mobile version