- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992)
This study guide examines the case of Re T and its impact on the legal presumption of capacity for medical treatment.
I. Core Concept: Presumption of Competence
Re T (1992): Established a fundamental principle: patients are presumed to be competent to make decisions about their own medical treatment. This means the burden of proof lies on those arguing that a patient lacks capacity.
II. Shifting Legal Landscape: Moving Towards Statutory Backing
The initial presumption in Re T was further solidified and clarified through subsequent developments:
Law Commission (1995): Recommended a statutory presumption against lack of capacity. The burden of proof would remain on those claiming incapacity, requiring proof on the balance of probabilities.
Government Acceptance (1999): The Lord Chancellor endorsed the Law Commission's recommendation, paving the way for statutory enshrinement.
Mental Capacity Bill 2004: This bill (and the supporting Joint Scrutiny Committee Report) reinforced the presumption against lack of capacity, further solidifying the legal framework. Clauses 1(1) and 2(3) are particularly relevant for understanding this aspect. (Note: The Bill likely evolved into legislation – further research is needed to identify the final act.)
III. Key Considerations for Understanding the Material:
Presumption vs. Determination: The case and subsequent developments establish a presumption of capacity. This presumption can be rebutted if evidence shows a patient lacks capacity. The focus is on proving lack of capacity, not simply competence.
Balance of Probabilities: The standard of proof for determining lack of capacity is the balance of probabilities – meaning it is more likely than not that the patient lacks capacity.
Statutory Basis: The initial common law principle of Re T gained further strength and clarity through legislative proposals and eventual enactment (the exact legislation needs to be identified through further research).
IV. Study Questions:
What is the central principle established in Re T (1992) concerning patient capacity?
How did the Law Commission's 1995 recommendation refine the legal approach to capacity?
What is the significance of the Mental Capacity Bill 2004 in this context?
What is the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of capacity?
What is the difference between a presumption of capacity and a determination of capacity?
V. Further Research:
Identify the specific legislation that resulted from the Mental Capacity Bill 2004.
Explore the details of clauses 1(1) and 2(3) of the Mental Capacity Bill 2004 (or its enacted equivalent).
Research the definition of "capacity" in the relevant legislation.
This study guide provides a structured approach to understanding the evolution of the legal presumption of capacity for medical treatment, starting with Re T and tracing its development through subsequent legislative efforts. Remember to conduct further research to complete your understanding.
This study guide examines the case of Re T and its impact on the legal presumption of capacity for medical treatment.
I. Core Concept: Presumption of Competence
Re T (1992): Established a fundamental principle: patients are presumed to be competent to make decisions about their own medical treatment. This means the burden of proof lies on those arguing that a patient lacks capacity.
II. Shifting Legal Landscape: Moving Towards Statutory Backing
The initial presumption in Re T was further solidified and clarified through subsequent developments:
Law Commission (1995): Recommended a statutory presumption against lack of capacity. The burden of proof would remain on those claiming incapacity, requiring proof on the balance of probabilities.
Government Acceptance (1999): The Lord Chancellor endorsed the Law Commission's recommendation, paving the way for statutory enshrinement.
Mental Capacity Bill 2004: This bill (and the supporting Joint Scrutiny Committee Report) reinforced the presumption against lack of capacity, further solidifying the legal framework. Clauses 1(1) and 2(3) are particularly relevant for understanding this aspect. (Note: The Bill likely evolved into legislation – further research is needed to identify the final act.)
III. Key Considerations for Understanding the Material:
Presumption vs. Determination: The case and subsequent developments establish a presumption of capacity. This presumption can be rebutted if evidence shows a patient lacks capacity. The focus is on proving lack of capacity, not simply competence.
Balance of Probabilities: The standard of proof for determining lack of capacity is the balance of probabilities – meaning it is more likely than not that the patient lacks capacity.
Statutory Basis: The initial common law principle of Re T gained further strength and clarity through legislative proposals and eventual enactment (the exact legislation needs to be identified through further research).
IV. Study Questions:
What is the central principle established in Re T (1992) concerning patient capacity?
How did the Law Commission's 1995 recommendation refine the legal approach to capacity?
What is the significance of the Mental Capacity Bill 2004 in this context?
What is the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of capacity?
What is the difference between a presumption of capacity and a determination of capacity?
V. Further Research:
Identify the specific legislation that resulted from the Mental Capacity Bill 2004.
Explore the details of clauses 1(1) and 2(3) of the Mental Capacity Bill 2004 (or its enacted equivalent).
Research the definition of "capacity" in the relevant legislation.
This study guide provides a structured approach to understanding the evolution of the legal presumption of capacity for medical treatment, starting with Re T and tracing its development through subsequent legislative efforts. Remember to conduct further research to complete your understanding.
0 Comments