EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

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

Jaime Lindsey and Chris Danbury

Medical Law Review, 2024, vol. 32, issue 3, 336-355

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.

Keywords: best interests; Court of Protection; disputes; mediation; mental capacity; participation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwae014 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:336-355.

Access Statistics for this article

Medical Law Review is currently edited by Professor Sara Fovargue and Professor Jose Miola

More articles in Medical Law Review from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:336-355.