Severely disabled individuals are now legally recognised as capable of consenting to their care arrangements, a significant ruling from the Supreme Court has confirmed. This landmark judgment clarifies a complex area of law, asserting that a person can have the capacity to agree to their living situation and care, even if they are deemed unable to make more intricate decisions about other aspects of their lives.
The case at the heart of this decision involved a woman, referred to as 'P', who has Down's syndrome and a severe learning disability. P lives in supported accommodation and requires substantial care. Her local authority had previously sought a court order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, arguing that P lacked the capacity to consent to her care arrangements, thus meaning she was being deprived of her liberty. The Supreme Court, however, has overturned earlier rulings, stating that P does possess the capacity to consent to her care, thereby deeming her not to be deprived of her liberty.
This ruling refines the 'acid test' for deprivation of liberty established in the 2014 Cheshire West case. That previous judgment stated that a person is deprived of their liberty if they are under continuous supervision and control and are not free to leave. The latest Supreme Court decision introduces a crucial nuance: if a person with significant intellectual impairment genuinely consents to their care package and living arrangements, they are not being deprived of their liberty, even if the Cheshire West criteria are met.
The implications of this judgment are far-reaching for individuals with learning disabilities, their families, and the care sector. It aims to empower disabled people by acknowledging their ability to make fundamental choices about their lives and care, rather than automatically assuming a lack of capacity. It also seeks to reduce the number of applications to the Court of Protection, which previously had to authorise care arrangements for many individuals who were considered to lack capacity and therefore be deprived of their liberty.
Charities and advocacy groups have largely welcomed the decision, viewing it as a step towards greater autonomy and respect for the rights of disabled people. They hope it will lead to a more person-centred approach to care planning, focusing on what an individual can consent to, rather than solely on what they cannot. However, the judgment also places a renewed emphasis on ensuring that consent given by severely disabled individuals is truly informed and voluntary, without undue influence.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the principle that capacity is decision-specific and not a general state. It affirms that even with significant impairments, individuals can still hold the capacity to consent to fundamental aspects of their daily lives, provided they understand the essence of the arrangement. This nuanced understanding is expected to guide local authorities and care providers in their future dealings with disabled individuals requiring support.
Source: BBC