IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i3pfwaf030..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interrogating the limits of precedent autonomy: the anomalous exclusion of basic care from the ambit of advance decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha Halliday
  • Jean V McHale

Abstract

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables individuals to make advance decisions to refuse medical treatment once they lose mental capacity. However, scant attention has been given to the limit imposed by the Code of Practice upon the ability of an individual to refuse care, as opposed to treatment in an advance decision. This article examines the different meanings of ‘basic care’. It interrogates the genesis of the exclusion within the Code of Practice. The article examines the problems created by the exclusion, both in definitional terms and in relation to the conflict created with respect for precedent autonomy. It argues that while such an exclusion could be justified on the basis of public policy at the turn of the 21st century, the evolution of greater respect for patient-centred decision-making and respect for human dignity require its re-evaluation. The article challenges the continued relevance of the exception in the light of shifts in public policy and the case law, proposing that the ability to make an advance decision about basic care as well as treatment is an essential element in the toolkit designed to ensure individualized care at the end of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha Halliday & Jean V McHale, 2025. "Interrogating the limits of precedent autonomy: the anomalous exclusion of basic care from the ambit of advance decisions," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 1-030..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:fwaf030.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf030
    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

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:fwaf030.. 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.