IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i3pfwaf021..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Support for decision-making guidance in England: a pragmatic review

Author

Listed:
  • Jillian Craigie
  • Antonia Alley
  • Maria Teresa Cotrufo
  • Michael Bach
  • Jodie Rawles
  • Isabel C H Clare
  • Matt Matravers
  • Francesca Happé

Abstract

Law and policy concerning personal decision-making increasingly recognizes a role for support to enable greater autonomy and legal recognition for adults whose decision-making ability may be limited. Support for decision making (SFDM) is embedded in England and Wales under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). It has also gained traction internationally through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which the UK is a signatory. However, these two legal reference points diverge in their understanding of SFDM, which presents challenges for putting it into practice. A pragmatic review methodology identified 40 resources containing SFDM guidance, providing insight into its implementation and conceptualization in England. An analysis indicates the need for authoritative guidance that provides more multifaceted advice, recognizing key variables including: the nature of the decision, source of decision-making difficulties, and the relationship of the supporter. Gaps in guidance provision are also identified for decision-makers, third parties, and the mental health context. The resources largely conceptualize SFDM as a means to enable mental capacity. However, recent developments propose a CRPD-aligned approach that includes SFDM in the context of substituted decisions. This generates a dualistic model of SFDM in England, raising new questions in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • Jillian Craigie & Antonia Alley & Maria Teresa Cotrufo & Michael Bach & Jodie Rawles & Isabel C H Clare & Matt Matravers & Francesca Happé, 2025. "Support for decision-making guidance in England: a pragmatic review," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 1-021..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:fwaf021.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:3:p:fwaf021.. 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.