[Side note: Happy New Year! I’ve decided I’m going to try to write a blog summarizing my PhD work, and related thinking, every week. Wednesdays are traditionally my day off, so now seems as good a time as any to get going…]
Why do we obey the law?
This is probably one of those jurisprudential questions that verges on the unanswerable, perhaps precisely because there are so many possible answers. And indeed, the question of obedience to the law has been debated extensively among legal philosophers (see, for example, the edited collection of readings on “The Duty to Obey the Law” by Edmonson, 1998). My aim here is not to try to provide an answer to this philosophical question.
But I have been reflecting on what “accountability” means in the context of the Mental Capacity Act 2005: taking as my starting point the perhaps rather simplistic assumption that if a law exists, its impact should be discernible in the consequences of its observance, but also of its transgression. I.e. If you break the law, you should hold a reasonable expectation of personal consequences as a result.
As I have been working through the analysis of my dataset for my current project (a textual ethnography of research ethics application processes for research involving participants who lack the capacity to consent – engaging ss.30-34 MCA 2005), I have noticed how many times I’ve referred to the “responsibilities” of the researcher – their “obligations” and “duties”, under either the law, or other forms of professional or institutional regulatory governance frameworks. And this has led me to question the nature of these responsibilities – particularly, what happens if the researcher fails to meet their legal obligations under the MCA 2005?
It has seemed rather difficult to identify any single, universally applicable answer to this question. But here are some of my findings and thoughts so far:
- Institutions sometimes refer to the MCA 2005 in their ethics application forms, but they don’t always. When they don’t do this, they direct researchers working with participants who “lack capacity” to NHS research ethics protocols. If they do refer to the law, this may be to inform the researcher (sometimes erroneously) as to what the MCA 2005 “requires”.
- The MCA 2005 sets out, in general terms, what is “required” of the researcher (although it is necessary to consult secondary legislation, and additional legal and professional guidance documentation for definition and clarification).
- The MCA 2005 states that research that does not abide by the requirements set out in the Act is “unlawful”. However, it makes no mention of any consequences arising directly from such illegality.
- I have been unable to find any cases where researchers experienced legal sanctions as a direct result of failure to adhere to the MCA 2005.
- It seems most likely that consequences of failure to follow the Act may arise indirectly, depending on the type of research undertaken, and what this involves for participants. For example, if research involving the administering of a specific treatment is undertaken involving participants who lack the capacity to consent, and the framework set out in ss.3–34 MCA 2005 are not followed, the research itself is “unlawful”. This means that the treatment administered was given without the required “best interests” process set out elsewhere in the Act, and would therefore constitute assault/battery. It is perhaps harder to think how this may apply to research that is less invasive (e.g. research involving interviewing) – although as the obtaining of “intrusive” personal data via unlawful research may be construed as fraudulent, it is likely that redress may be sought via fraud, or data protection legislation.
- My analysis of the full legal, ethical, professional, and institutional regulatory frameworks that apply to researchers working with participants who lack the capacity to consent has shown that the majority of “consequences” relating to transgression of the framework set out in the MCA 2005 are to be inferred from institutional/professional regulation mechanisms that indirectly invoke the Act – e.g. Research Governance Codes of Conduct that require researchers to follow any law relating to their proposed research undertakings. As such codes form part of the studentship/employment contracts existing between the researcher and the institution, personal consequences (e.g. dismissal for gross misconduct) are likely to be swift and devastating to the researcher.
- This last point reinforces, and reminds me of how important it is that I research and understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as a socio-cultural structure that exists within a complex matrix of social domains. In this instance, the “reach” of the MCA 2005 is perhaps felt most acutely, not in the Court of Protection, but in the university Human Resources department.
I have also been trying to identify wider consequences of failure to adhere to the MCA 2005. The Act brought with it a new criminal offense – that of “Ill treatment or wilful neglect of a person lacking capacity” (s.44 MCA 2005).
Some case law involving this offense is available here: https://www.39essex.com/case_tag/criminal-offences-ill-treatment-wilful-neglect/
Another case of interest to my own research (that relating to Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment) is that of Jillian Rushton: a retired nurse who received Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration via a feeding tube following a brain injury, contrary to the provisions of her ADRT – seemingly due to a failure of healthcare professionals/organisations to maintain and communicate her ADRT. The case (NHS Cumbria CCG v Mrs Jillian Rushton (by her Litigation Friend) and Mr Tim Rushton  EWCOP 41) is reported here (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2018/41.html) – though is of limited relevance to the issue of sanction for non-compliance with the Act, because as Mr Justice Hayden made clear in the judgment, he was not asked to consider matters of responsibility for failure to adhere to Mrs Rushton’s ADRT, and did not address this in the judgment.
Lastly, for now, my own ethnographic work in the Court of Protection identifies a consequence for Local Authorities of failure to adhere to an aspect of the MCA 2005 that has widely been interpreted as a bureaucratic burden for LAs – the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). On more than one occasion, hearings I had planned to attend were vacated at short notice, at the request of a Local Authority that was unprepared for the hearing. However, on one occasion, the LA in question assumed the judge would agree to vacate, and therefore did not attend the hearing. This was not, in fact, the case. The judge had not agreed to the request to vacate, meaning that an (unsurprisingly short and unproductive) hearing took place, with costs being awarded against the Local Authority.
I would like to expand this list of “consequences of non-compliance with the MCA 2005” – by adding themes, and details, and by considering the impact of non-compliance from multiple perspectives.
If you have thoughts or experiences to add, please get in touch!