The Mental Capacity Act - Essay Example

Medic law There are three main legal requirements that are used in making a valid consent or refusal of medical treatment. The first one is that for the consent to be valid, sufficient information should be given. The patient should be explained broadly and also he or she is supposed to know the nature of treatment for the example of the case of chatterson VsGerson. The second one, is consent should be voluntary and this means that the patients should provide their agreement without restrictions, threats, force, terror or for any unfair gain for instance in the case of Beausoleil Vs sisters of Charity. Lastly, it should be relative to the treatment provided. It means that consent will not be in favor of other health care professional or hospital in case one procedure is not followed accordingly. Incapacity means that an individual is unable to make his or her own decisions or when a person's mind is not able to function well. The legal test for incapacity is mainly carried by the doctors. This means that the doctors are the chief assessors of that incapacity. They do assess the incapacity in respect to a certain decision which a patient should make and the time of making the consent. The medical assessment is the main test done though there are tested to determine if a patient is incapacitated. A medical test of a patient who is incapacitated should consider the following professional assessment of the patient; cognitive capacity, situation and environment , mental or medical condition and diagnosis and lastly they should also consider functional capacity. Cognitive capacity is evaluated by medical practitioners by the use of cognitive tests and clinical interviews. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not provide adequate safeguards for incapacitated patients when determining what is their best interest. The act states that; `` decision made or an act done under this act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interest, ( Section 1 (5) MCA). ’’ Despite, section 4 of the mental capacity act that sets out the checklist that enumerates elements which should be considered when determining the best interests of a patient does not bring clear meaning of this concept at all. Also the statutory checklist does not bring forth the clarification on how the various elements will be well-adjusted throughout the progress and assessment of best interest. In the view of making the decision, best interest is frequently contrasted to the surrogate judgement standards; although the previous is believed to set objectives’ benchmarks for making decisions on behalf others. The factors that are in the checklist are not extensive in most cases and so extra elements should be well-thought-out. This is because the checklist considers has five main elements that should be considered in deciding the best interest of a patient. Finally, mental capacity act does not provide the meaning of best interest and also the term is not included in the mental health act yet this two acts activities go in hand. #2 The purpose of legal regulation of assisted conception and embryology within the United Kingdom is broadly perceived, it assists a social goal. First, regulation is supposed to guarantee the end users that are both the health care providers and the patient that the service will fully suit their needs and it will not lead to moral and cost concerns. In essence, the regulation is all almost dealing with control. Embryology and assisted conception in the UK are regulated by Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990. It regulates the profession of medicine, it also controls the collected information as a result of assisted conception, administering techniques, and lastly manages the relation which follows when their children who are born through assisted conception. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 has laid down the regulations which will govern the operation in treatment and research though in this sector of medicine all ethical judgement should be made by the patients and medical professionals. The legislative framework of the 1990 Act requires that there is regulation of formation and usage of embryos externally despite the method used in its formation. The ethical research should not be regulated by the 1990 Act because respect attached to the embryo to give or bear benefits. The legal research on embryos and assisted conception should be left in the hands of professionals so that they may benefit those who are in entire need of their use. The professional need to do the research on assisted conception and embryos without conceding their special eminence but it should have a good ethical oversight. Though it is not so easy to have a consensus between law, medicine and ethics when it comes to the state of protection that should be given to an embryo or assisted conception. This is because there is no any right answer which will demonstrate moral and ethical complexity. Due to the advancement in technology there have been inefficiency in achieving the goal of assisted reproduction and embryos. To ensure its effectiveness assisted reproduction and any research associated with embryos should not only be left to be in control of the state but should be left in the hands of professionals and patients. They are in a position of balancing the interest of the society. Legislative framework should consider what to regulate in respect to potential benefit or potential harm. Despite the several scientific and technological developments and change in societal attitudes the embryo should be highly valued. Even if the has been challenged in the drafting of legislation, there should be practical, ethical and sound solutions which should allow research on assisted reproduction and embryo within the regulations set in the Act. Also the Law has some risks which should be considered, for instance in case of assisted conception the patient may be affected by the drugs which are used to fuel production of eggs or in a case where multiple pregnancy occurs. In this case the government should intervene only if the risk is said to be unacceptably grave. References Gillon, R. Philosophical Medical Ethics. 1986. Wiley Read More