The deprivation of liberty safeguards: Observations and limitations
dc.contributor.author | Phull, Jaspreet S. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-08-24T15:00:41Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-08-24T15:00:41Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Phull, J. S. (2011). The deprivation of liberty safeguards: Observations and limitations. Medicine, Science and the Law, 51 (4), pp.187-192. | |
dc.identifier.other | 10.1258/msl.2011.010151 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/5537 | |
dc.description.abstract | The recently introduced Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which came into force in April 2009, was created to protect the liberty of people lacking capacity admitted to care homes and hospitals in England and Wales. This paper discusses observations and some limitations of the DoLS for protecting the liberty of residents within institutional settings. The regulation, safeguards and recent relevant case law are examined critically. The author suggests that their effectiveness may be limited by the under-recognition of cases, ambiguity and limited safeguards within the statute. The paper concludes that the DoLS legislation has been a positive step towards protecting the liberty of those lacking capacity but that limitations present could undermine the purpose of the legislation. | |
dc.description.uri | http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1258/msl.2011.010151 | |
dc.subject | Legislation | |
dc.subject | Mental competency | |
dc.title | The deprivation of liberty safeguards: Observations and limitations | |
dc.type | Article | |
html.description.abstract | The recently introduced Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which came into force in April 2009, was created to protect the liberty of people lacking capacity admitted to care homes and hospitals in England and Wales. This paper discusses observations and some limitations of the DoLS for protecting the liberty of residents within institutional settings. The regulation, safeguards and recent relevant case law are examined critically. The author suggests that their effectiveness may be limited by the under-recognition of cases, ambiguity and limited safeguards within the statute. The paper concludes that the DoLS legislation has been a positive step towards protecting the liberty of those lacking capacity but that limitations present could undermine the purpose of the legislation. |