IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i1p6..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The two lives of the Mental Capacity Act: rethinking East-west binaries in comparative analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hillary Chua
  • Camillia Kong
  • Michael Dunn

Abstract

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales and Singapore’s Mental Capacity Act 2008 (which substantially transplants provisions from the former statute) might appear to be twins on paper, but they have gone on to lead very different lives. In this article, we examine how two broadly identical laws have taken on divergent identities within their respective jurisdictions when implemented and interpreted in the courtroom. We reveal and analyse differences in parliamentary intent concerning at what stage a person’s decision-making agency is putatively empowered; judicial development of central concepts; underlying socio-cultural commitments; and outline opportunities for bi-directional learning in mental capacity law across both jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hillary Chua & Camillia Kong & Michael Dunn, 2025. "The two lives of the Mental Capacity Act: rethinking East-west binaries in comparative analysis," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-6..
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:1:p:6.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwae034
    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:33:y:2025:i:1:p:6.. 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.