Page 237 - Demo

decisions about the religious’ care. However, even in these circumstances, it
is important to remember that the Act requires medical professionals to act
in the best interests of their patients. This will include taking into account the past wishes and beliefs of a patient, including their religious beliefs and values and the views of those who are interested in their welfare. A religious therefore has a right to expect that medical professionals will act in a way appropriate to their beliefs, when they themselves lack capacity to make decisions.
If a member of a religious community is admitted to hospital, it would therefore be appropriate for other members of the religious community to make the hospital staff aware of the beliefs of the individual. However, in emergency situations where medical professionals have to act fast, there is unlikely to be time for an in-depth discussion and the lack of a simple document will probably mean that the religious’ wishes are overlooked. It is worth remembering that, where an individual religious still has capacity, they are fully entitled to make it clear to the medical staff that they wish the staff to take into account the views of the members of the religious community when carrying out treatment.
Deprivation of liberty safeguards
With effect from 1 April 2009, the Act was substantively amended to provide
a way to authorise the deprivation of liberty of a person, when the person is unable to consent and that deprivation is in their best interests for their care or treatment.
WHY WERE THESE CHANGES INTRODUCED?
The Human Rights Act provides universal rights to everyone. Article 5 of the Human Rights Act ensures that everyone has the right to liberty and security and that no one is deprived of their liberty by the State, without lawful justi cation. Under Article 5, where someone is deprived of their liberty this deprivation must be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.
In the case known as Bournewood the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was asked to consider the issue of deprivation of liberty. As part of their judgement they criticised the fact that there was no procedure in place in England by which a deprivation of liberty could be authorised and reviewed. As a result of the Bournewood case the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was amended to introduce the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Chapter 12 233