IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v31y2023i4p564-593..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interpersonal influences on decision-making capacity: a content analysis of court judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Ariyo
  • Nuala B Kane
  • Gareth S Owen
  • Alex Ruck Keene

Abstract

For many purposes in England and Wales, the Court of Protection determines whether a person has or lacks capacity to make a decision, by applying the test within the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This test is regularly described as a cognitive test with cognitive processes discussed as internal characteristics. However, it is unclear how the courts have framed interpersonal influence as negatively impacting upon a person’s decision-making processes in a capacity assessment context. We reviewed published court judgments in England and Wales in which interpersonal problems were discussed as relevant to capacity. Through content analysis, we developed a typology that highlights five ways the courts considered influence to be problematic to capacity across these cases. Interpersonal influence problems were constructed as (i) P’s inability to preserve their free will or independence, (ii) restricting P’s perspective, (iii) valuing or dependence on a relationship, (iv) acting on a general suggestibility to influence, or (v) P denying facts about the relationship. These supposed mechanisms of interpersonal influence problems are poorly understood and clearly merit further consideration. Our typology and case discussion are a start towards more detailed practice guidelines, and raise questions as to whether mental capacity and influence should remain legally distinct.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Ariyo & Nuala B Kane & Gareth S Owen & Alex Ruck Keene, 2023. "Interpersonal influences on decision-making capacity: a content analysis of court judgments," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 564-593.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:4:p:564-593.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwad017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:4:p:564-593.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.