IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v32y2024i3p336-355..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mediating disputes under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: relationships, participation, and best interests

Author

Listed:
  • Jaime Lindsey
  • Chris Danbury

Abstract

This article analyses the use of mediation to resolve mental capacity law disputes, including those that arise in the healthcare context. It draws on original empirical data, including interviews with lawyers and mediators, and analysis of a mediation scheme, to argue that mediation has the potential to be an effective method of resolution in mental capacity law. It highlights the relationship benefits of mediation while acknowledging the challenges of securing P’s participation and best interests. The final section of the article considers how mediation can operate in one of the most challenging healthcare environments, the Intensive Care Unit. The article emphasizes that the challenges we see in mediation are not unique and exist across the spectrum of Court of Protection practice. Therefore, the article concludes that mediation may be used effectively but the jurisdiction would also benefit from a clearer regulatory framework in which it can operate.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaime Lindsey & Chris Danbury, 2024. "Mediating disputes under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: relationships, participation, and best interests," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 336-355.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:336-355.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwae014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:336-355.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.