title: Mental Capacity Law, Autonomy, and best Interests: An Argument for Conceptual and Practical Clarity in the Court of Protection.
abstract: This article examines medical decision-making, arguing that the law, properly understood, requires where possible that equal weight be given to the wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values of patients who have, and patients who are deemed to lack, decision-making capacity. It responds critically to dominant lines of reasoning that are advanced and applied in the Court of Protection, and suggests that for patient-centred practice to be achieved, we do not need to revise the law, but do need to ensure robust interpretation and application of the law. The argument is based on conceptual analysis of the law's framing of patients and medical decisions, and legal analysis of evolving and contemporary norms governing the best interests standard.
authors.affiliation: University of Bristol Law School, Bristol, UK.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Coggon
mesh_terms: D003657:Decision Making; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D006801:Humans; D016743:Mental Competency
keywords: Court of Protection; Mental capacity; autonomy; best interests; medical decision-making