Get in touch:
0800 254 5262

Why is it important to receive legal advice to sort out disputes?

When disputes begin to get out of hand, clients often come to us for legal advice. However, in order to ensure you act in your own best interests, it is always important to seek legal advice as soon as a disagreement turns into a larger dispute.

What constitutes a dispute that requires legal advice?

At Craybeck Law, we are able to advise you on disputes such as problems with local authorities, receiving the right type of care for elderly relatives or young adults with special needs, family disputes regarding looking after relatives, professional negligence or breach of contract. 

When is the right time to seek legal advice about a dispute?

If you intend to instigate a dispute we would advise you to contact us as soon as possible - before you begin any correspondence with the other party. Similarly, if you find yourself on the receiving end of being served legal papers, please reach out for advice before you proceed to respond in any way. In short, we would advise anyone involved in a dispute to contact Craybeck Law as soon as you begin to realise a dispute is underway. 

Often, we find that clients approach us mid-way through a dispute, after something has occurred that they no longer know how to respond to. For example, after they have already replied to the first piece of communication. If possible, it is always better to seek help before you become embroiled in a dispute of any kind, as anything you do could be used as evidence at a later date. By seeking legal advice early, we can ensure you are in the best position to move forward.

What if I am not sure if the event I am involved in constitutes a dispute?

We can provide you with confidential advice at any stage. If you are in an unusual situation involving a second party and you are not sure how to react or respond, get in touch with us. We will find out more about your specific situation and we can advise you on the best course of action.

Finding yourself in a dispute situation can be stressful, confusing, and often difficult if you have never been in a similar situation in the past. On these occasions, we can guide you through your options, and ensure you are fully prepared for every eventuality.

Sometimes, disputes against health boards or professional organisations can arise out of nowhere, and in these situations, they can be even more difficult to navigate. Rather than struggle alone, please reach out to us for advice and guidance.

At Craybeck Law, our friendly team are approachable and committed to give you the advice and support that you need. Whether you are involved in a dispute regarding care for a loved one, or you are concerned about an ongoing issue and you are not sure how to proceed, let us help. 

Get in touch with us today for professional, legal advice on 0800 254 5262.

When someone dies, whether it be a first or second spouse or partner, you should always instruct a solicitor to manage the probate for you.

What is probate?

The probate process involves managing bereavement. Often, this will include understanding who will be passed what from the deceased’s will, deal withtax matters, manage any owned properties, and settle any outstanding debts. These responsibilities will fall to executors of the will, but executors can instruct a solicitor to manage the probate process on their behalf if they wish.

Why should you trust a solicitor to manage probate for you?

Even though it is possible to manage the probate process yourself, there are a variety of personal and practical reasons why allowing a solicitor to manage the probate process is the best course of action. 

Understandably, when someone dies, emotions will be heightened, and managing assets can add pressure at an already stressful time. 

Instructing a solicitor to manage probate will also relieve you of having to deal with any discrepancies in the will that may need resolving, as well as ensuring that the tax is dealt with efficiently. 

If the deceased was a business owner, we can also advise you on business succession, and conduct an audit to establish the best way forward for the business.

Attempting to manage probate without professional advice can result in beneficiaries receiving less money than anticipated, and cause unnecessary stress. 

How does the probate process work?

Once you have instructed us to deal with the probate process, we will manage everything from obtaining the death certificate and validating the deceased’s will, through to completing all relevant government forms for tax purposes. The list of responsibilities that fall in the probate process is extensive, and often, these responsibilities can become an emotional burden that is difficult to manage. 

When we have been instructed to manage the probate process on your behalf, we can also contact banks and other financial institutions to identify assets and the like, leaving you free from additional pressure that can be overwhelming for those who have never managed probate before. 

If a will has become outdated, or adjustments need to be made to the original will, we can help to advise and amend the will on your behalf. Adjustments may need to be made if there have been changes in a family structure since the will was created, or if there are children under the age of 18 who may require a trust fund to be set up for them.

Equally, when and if a disputes arise over a will, if we have been instructed to manage probate for you, we can work to resolve issues within the family ourselves. Usually, we will try to resolve any issues through mediation. 


At Craybeck Law, we are experts in managing probate, and we can give you the peace of mind that you are making the right decision on behalf of your loved one. Allow us to make the process as smooth as possible and help you navigate an already difficult time with greater ease. Our professional experience and dedication to do the best for our clients ensures that we provide a service that is both personal and thorough. 

Contact us today for a free initial discussion on 0800 254 5262.

The Covid-19 pandemic has forced many of us to reevaluate our lifestyle choices, and think about the future perhaps more than we had before. Choosing an attorney to act using a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is an important decision that should be given care and careful consideration. In this article, we will break down everything you need to think about when thinking about appointing an LPA attorney to hopefully make the process a little easier.

What can an LPA Attorney do?

An LPA attorney will have the ability to make decisions on your behalf. There are two types of LPAs: property and financial affairs, and health and wellbeing. Usually, we suggest that clients appoint both types of LPAs at the same time.

Once a property and financial affairs LPA has been registered with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), the attorney powers can come into effect, even before you lose the capacity to make decisions for yourself. A health and wellbeing LPA will only come into effect when you are no longer able to make decisions yourself. This is why it is so important to select the right person to be your LPA attorney as it will need to be someone you know you can trust. 

Who can be a lasting power of attorney?

Generally, we would advise you to appoint your grown up children, family members or close friends to be your LPA attorney. It is incredibly important that you spend time thinking about who you would like to appoint as your attorney because they will be making decisions for you.

Your attorney needs to be someone who understands you, your beliefs and the way you think. It also needs to be someone who is honest, reliable and trustworthy. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice also states that the person you select should have the ‘skills and ability to carry out the necessary tasks’.

Unfortunately, not everyone selects the best person to be their attorney. On rare occasions, attorneys can take advantage of the trust that has been placed in them, and it can have devastating consequences. For this reason,it isvital that you know the person you choose very well before you make your decision.

Provided you have sufficient understanding to do so, you can cancel your LPA at any time, but due to the time and cost investment in selecting an attorney, we advise you to think about your future and the long term implications before making your choice.

When is the best time to make an LPA?

Often, the best time to make an LPA is at key points in your life. For some, this may be when you turn 18, when you get married, or have children. For others, it may be when you retire. You can choose make an LPA at any time, providing you have the mental capacity to do so.

How do I choose an LPA Attorney?

At Craybeck Law, we can offer free advice on all legal matters, as well as begin the process of making an LPA and appointing a suitable LPA attorney on your behalf. We can talk you through making an LPA, the certificate provider process, and registering your LPA to ensure you are confident about the implications of your decisions. 

For more information call us on 0800 254 5262.

by Craig Ward of Lundie MSc solicitor

Following remarkably swift efficacy trials three covid-19 vaccines are available in the UK. Each offers an amount of protection and as with any other vaccine comes with cautions. In most instances patients will consent themselves for vaccination. Individuals lacking capacity are subject to section 4 Mental Capacity Act (MCA) - is this vaccination in their best interests. This decision can be made for them using their health and welfare (HW) lasting power of attorney (LPA) or HW deputyship. Alternatively by health care professionals if their is no HW LPA or HW deputyship.

Currently Available Vaccines

The three available vaccines in the UK are; the Pfizer/BioNTech, the AstraZeneca and Moderna. Like with any medical intervention individual patients may react differently. Common vaccines side effects include; headaches, nausea, myalgia (muscle pain) and arthralgia (joint pain) or chills. As with other vaccines there is no complete guarantee of protection. The Pfizer and BioNTech covid-19 vaccine offers an average efficacy of 95% (range 90.3% to 97.6%) efficacy after the second dose. The second dose administered 3 to 12 weeks later. The AstraZeneca vaccine offers average of 70% efficacy, (range 62% to 90%) after the second dose. The second dose administered after 4 to 12 weeks. The Moderna vaccine provides an average efficacy of 94% efficacy (range 89.3% to 96.8%) after the second does which should be given 28 days after the first dose. 

All three clinical trials report a lower efficacy with only one vaccine dose. The clinical research community’s discussions (available online) show differences in their understanding of these efficacys following the first vaccine dose. The question being what is the percentage protection from one vaccine and how does this increase over time. What is agreed is that there is a reduced protection with one vaccine dose which increases following the second vaccine dose. There is also as yet little or no clinical evidence in regard to receipt of multiple covid-19 vaccines.

 There are contra-indications for vaccination. If a person has previously had severe reactions to vaccination, is suffering from acute severe febrile illness (a rapid onset of fever), receiving anticoagulant therapy or immunosuppressant therapy they should seek medical advice before taking a covid-19 vaccination. Their doctor may advise against taking a covid-19 vaccine. 

Consent

In most instances patients consent themselves for vaccination. When someone lacks sufficient capacity to make health and welfare decisions for themselves, their HW LPA attorneys or HW deputy consents on their behalf. Consent derives from MCA section 3 and case law being issue and time specific. The issue being do they want to be vaccinated against covid-19 and can they understand sufficiently at this time to decide? This is not to say the HW attorney or HW deputy should automatically step in and make decisions. All decision makers must as far as is reasonably practicable, permit and encourage the person lacking capacity to participate or improve their ability to participate in decisions. HW attorneys and HW deputies should try in straightforward language to explain the advantages and disadvantages, together with the procedure of being vaccinated to the person lacking capacity to enable them to be included in the decision making process.

Sufficient Capacity

The MCA section 3 determines if someone is able to make a decision. Are they are unable, (a)  to understand the information relevant to the decision, (b) retain that information, (c)  use or weigh that information as part of the process of decision making, (d) communicate their decision. Where they are not able to understand, retain or weight up or communicate their decision, decisions can be made in their best interest.


A decision maker determining a patient's capacity to decide to be vaccinated should be made on the basis of do they; a) consent to receive one of the covid-19 vaccines b) consent to the vaccination process, that is being injected once and/or twice, c) understand the vaccine’s benefits, d) appreciate the vaccine’s side effects and risks, e) understand the consequences of not receiving a covid-19 vaccine.

Demonstrating sufficient capacity also includes understanding government views of delaying the second vaccine dose. The vaccine clinical trials expectation is that patients receive two doses separated by a specified period of time. The consequences of the second dose delay would be reduced covid-19 protection.

Determining best interests

What is in someone’s best interests is determined by section 4 MCA. Central to this is the person’s own views and wishes, their beliefs and values. Even in circumstances where it is not exactly what the patient would have consented to having had capacity. Best interests can also be determined from, if practical and appropriate to consult, individuals named by the person lacking capacity such as their HW LPA attorneys. Also people interested in their care such as their HW deputy. A key part of acting in someone's best interest is to include the person lacking capacity and to assist them to improve their ability to make decisions.

Misleading Information

Not all publicly available information is equally reliable. If there are concerns the beliefs of the person lacking capacity should be determined regarding the benefits of a covid-19 vaccine and what may have influenced these. In MM [2007] EWHC 2003 (Fam) Munby J as he was then held that, "if one does not believe a particular piece of information then one does not, in truth, comprehend or understand it, nor can it be said that one is able to use or weigh it. A useful discussion with the person lacking capacity might be, do they understand the consequences of declining a the covid-19 vaccine?

Abuse

Decision makers must be aware of potential undue influence or abuse. As well as is control or coercion being engaged by someone for their own personal benefit.

Vaccinating Someone

The person administering the vaccination should satisfy themselves the patient sufficiently understands the consequences of receiving that covid-19 vaccine and the vaccination procedure.

If someone lacks capacity, before the vaccination is carried out inquiries should be made concerning the patient’s; a) acceptability to being injected, b) any previous adverse vaccine reactions, c) does the patient have a fear of needles, d) have they experienced distress from previous vaccinations, e) is there anyone involved in their care who should be consulted. If challenged the person administering the vaccine should be able to demonstrate the vaccination was in the patient’s best interests.

Care Home Residents

The NHS has produced a ‘Covid-19 vaccination consent form’ relating to care home residents. It allows for HW attorneys to consent or decline consent for covid-19 vaccination of a resident. The form is then stored with the residents medical information. HW attorneys declining consent are required to provide the reasons for declining. The NHS have also produced a ‘Relative of a Care Home Resident unable to consent for themselves’ form. There is also forms for residents who can consent as well as relevant letters. 

Refusing Vaccination

Reasons for a patient to decline vaccination may include vaccine contraindications or the patient’s previous negative reaction to vaccinations. The individual may have expressed views, wishes, beliefs or values (religious, moral or ethical) on declining vaccination. Reference should be made to individuals holding an advance decision which declines vaccination.

Compulsory vaccination

There are no governmental provisions requiring someone to receive a covid-19 vaccine. Compulsory vaccination would interfere with an individual’s autonomy under Article 8 Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). For the vulnerable adult there is also a likely breach of Article 12 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Paragraph 25(b) says that, “All forms of support in the exercise of legal capacity (including more intensive forms of support) must be based on the will and preference of the person, not on what is perceived as being in his or her objective best interests”. The patient with capacity can if they so wish for whatever reasons decline vaccination. 

Mental Health Act 1983

Section 2 Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) says individuals may be detained, “…with a view to the protection of other persons.”. Vaccinating the patient with capacity under section 2 MHA against their will would need to justify an interference of Article 8 HRA. Reasons may include the individual is placing others at risk in that they are deliberately trying to infect others or catch covid-19 and that it is a proportionate response having exhausted all other options to isolate the individual concerned. There is currently no evidence that a covid-19 vaccination alleviates mental health conditions. The patient with capacity detained under section 3 MHA may not be vaccinated against their will unless a justification can be provided concerning interference with Article 8 HRA. The authority of an LPA attorney does not apply in regard to treatment or vaccine decisions for donor’s detained under the MHA. 

Fluctuating capacity 

With the individual whose capacity fluctuates or lacks sufficient capacity to make some medical decisions but retains capacity for others, the question of declining vaccination is more complex. Here the HW attorney or HW deputy should explain the consequences of not receiving the vaccine to the patient, the common side effects, contraindications and provide them with suitable information of the consequences of declining vaccination. They should also be able to show how they assisted the person to decide. 

Serious Medical Treatment and Advocates

In most instances patients with severe underlying health conditions who also lack capacity when vaccinated will be accompanied by a friend or relative. If the patient has no one an advocate or Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) should be appointed. Advocates or IMCA’s are required if there is a fine balance between patient treatment benefits and likely burdens and risks to them, where there is a choice of treatments and deciding between these, or where the proposed treatment would involve serious consequences for the patient. An advocate may also be required where there is no one accompanying the patient and the patient may be reluctant to receive the treatment.

Advance Decisions (Living Wills)

Has the person made an advance decision which specifically relates to refusing vaccinations?

To decline a medical intervention the advance decision (AD) should specifically refer to that medical intervention on the AD, if life threatening in writing. Unless an AD has been created after the start of the current covid-19 pandemic it is unlikely an AD will contain a specific clause regarding declining a covid-19 vaccine. AD’s can refer generally to declining vaccinations which may be followed if applicable. Applicable means the reader can identify ‘what is to be declined’ and under ‘what circumstances’. Even if the AD refers to declining vaccinations, there are circumstances where this may not be followed if there are reasonable grounds for believing the AD maker did not anticipate circumstances surrounding declining a covid-19 vaccine. 

If the AD refers to vaccination declines in general  the question becomes, does this refusal constitute a refusal of life sustaining treatment? If so then section 25 MCA is engaged. This states that an AD which declines life sustaining treatment should be in writing and witnessed. It should also state this treatment is declined, ‘even if my life is at risk’.

An AD to decline treatment is not valid where the maker with capacity has changed their mind, has made an HW LPA which confers authority on their attorney to give or refuse consent to the treatment to which the AD relates to, or has done anything else clearly inconsistent with the AD remaining their fixed decision. If the AD maker retains capacity the AD does not apply. If they lack capacity and the AD does not specifically refer to declining the covid-19 vaccination it can still be used as an indication of their views and wishes.

Vaccination as Life Sustaining Treatment

The starting point for declining medical intervention is that, if declined would this constitute a life sustaining treatment decision. That is, by declining this treatment intervention, would this potentially place the person’s life at risk? Advice should be sought from medical professionals as to is this a reasonably real risk or not. 

If declining vaccination is not a life sustaining risk HW attorneys and HW deputies could decline vaccination. If it is found to be a life sustaining treatment decision the HW deputies  may not decline vaccination and an application should be made to the Court of Protection. The HW LPA would need to specifically refer to declining that vaccination in which case the attorney can decline, otherwise they may not. In both instances the principles of MCA section 4 would need to be shown to have been applied. 

Restraint and Vaccination

Restraint may only be used to vaccinate someone subject to MCA s.5 and 6. Before any restraint is undertaken the person considering restraint must demonstrate there is a reasonable belief the person lacks capacity in regard to that particular matter and it will be in their best interests for the restraint to be conducted. See also MCA Code of Practice paragraph 5.38 and its Scenario box. If vaccinating a patient lacking capacity restraint should be the last option. An alternative approach taken in Livewell Southwest Community Interest Company v MD [2020] EWCOP 57 may be considered. Mostyn J held that a dental procedure could be undertaken, …covertly… as the patient was know to physically resist treatment and may place others at risk. Consideration should be given to the practicality of this approach.

Restraint must be a proportionate response to the patient's likelihood of suffering harm and the seriousness of that harm. During the actual vaccination the patient's arm should be relatively relaxed. Moving their arm around can prevent a suitable vaccination site being identified and may lead to medical complications. Moving their arm around can also risk breaking the vaccination needle. To prevent such harms, for example comforting words and reassurances may be used, followed by more directing words encouraging the patient to remain still. Only once all other options have been exhausted may minimal restraint be considered. When restraint is engaged this must be fully documented, giving reasons to justify why it was used.

Advice where the is no HW LPA or HW deputy

If there is no health and welfare LPA or deputy in place the following advice should be considered by the decision maker. They should be able to show how they have applied the MHA section 4 (best interests principles). How has the person lacking capacity been involved in the decision making process. Has the patient provided any written documentation on their views and wishes over vaccinations. What are the beliefs of the person lacking capacity concerning receiving a covid-19 vaccine? Is there anyone who should be consulted to provide information to assist in determining is this in the patient's best interests? If the vaccine was not given what are the consequences for the patient and how much of this do they understand?

Covid-19 Vaccination and Mental Capacity 

by Craig Ward of Lundie MSc solicitor

Following remarkably swift efficacy trials three covid-19 vaccines are available in the UK. Each offers an amount of protection and as with any other vaccine comes with cautions. In most instances patients will consent themselves for vaccination. Individuals lacking capacity are subject to section 4 Mental Capacity Act (MCA) - is this vaccination in their best interests. This decision can be made for them using their health and welfare (HW) lasting power of attorney (LPA) or HW deputyship. Alternatively by health care professionals if their is no HW LPA or HW deputyship.

Currently Available Vaccines

The three available vaccines in the UK are; the Pfizer/BioNTech, the AstraZeneca and Moderna. Like with any medical intervention individual patients may react differently. Common vaccines side effects include; headaches, nausea, myalgia (muscle pain) and arthralgia (joint pain) or chills. As with other vaccines there is no complete guarantee of protection. The Pfizer and BioNTech covid-19 vaccine offers an average efficacy of 95% (range 90.3% to 97.6%) efficacy after the second dose. The second dose administered 3 to 12 weeks later. The AstraZeneca vaccine offers average of 70% efficacy, (range 62% to 90%) after the second dose. The second dose administered after 4 to 12 weeks. The Moderna vaccine provides an average efficacy of 94% efficacy (range 89.3% to 96.8%) after the second does which should be given 28 days after the first dose. 

All three clinical trials report a lower efficacy with only one vaccine dose. The clinical research community’s discussions (available online) show differences in their understanding of these efficacys following the first vaccine dose. The question being what is the percentage protection from one vaccine and how does this increase over time. What is agreed is that there is a reduced protection with one vaccine dose which increases following the second vaccine dose. There is also as yet little or no clinical evidence in regard to receipt of multiple covid-19 vaccines.

 There are contra-indications for vaccination. If a person has previously had severe reactions to vaccination, is suffering from acute severe febrile illness (a rapid onset of fever), receiving anticoagulant therapy or immunosuppressant therapy they should seek medical advice before taking a covid-19 vaccination. Their doctor may advise against taking a covid-19 vaccine. 

Consent

In most instances patients consent themselves for vaccination. When someone lacks sufficient capacity to make health and welfare decisions for themselves, their HW LPA attorneys or HW deputy consents on their behalf. Consent derives from MCA section 3 and case law being issue and time specific. The issue being do they want to be vaccinated against covid-19 and can they understand sufficiently at this time to decide? This is not to say the HW attorney or HW deputy should automatically step in and make decisions. All decision makers must as far as is reasonably practicable, permit and encourage the person lacking capacity to participate or improve their ability to participate in decisions. HW attorneys and HW deputies should try in straightforward language to explain the advantages and disadvantages, together with the procedure of being vaccinated to the person lacking capacity to enable them to be included in the decision making process.

Sufficient Capacity

The MCA section 3 determines if someone is able to make a decision. Are they are unable, (a)  to understand the information relevant to the decision, (b) retain that information, (c)  use or weigh that information as part of the process of decision making, (d) communicate their decision. Where they are not able to understand, retain or weight up or communicate their decision, decisions can be made in their best interest.


A decision maker determining a patient's capacity to decide to be vaccinated should be made on the basis of do they; a) consent to receive one of the covid-19 vaccines b) consent to the vaccination process, that is being injected once and/or twice, c) understand the vaccine’s benefits, d) appreciate the vaccine’s side effects and risks, e) understand the consequences of not receiving a covid-19 vaccine.

Demonstrating sufficient capacity also includes understanding government views of delaying the second vaccine dose. The vaccine clinical trials expectation is that patients receive two doses separated by a specified period of time. The consequences of the second dose delay would be reduced covid-19 protection.

Determining best interests

What is in someone’s best interests is determined by section 4 MCA. Central to this is the person’s own views and wishes, their beliefs and values. Even in circumstances where it is not exactly what the patient would have consented to having had capacity. Best interests can also be determined from, if practical and appropriate to consult, individuals named by the person lacking capacity such as their HW LPA attorneys. Also people interested in their care such as their HW deputy. A key part of acting in someone's best interest is to include the person lacking capacity and to assist them to improve their ability to make decisions.

Misleading Information

Not all publicly available information is equally reliable. If there are concerns the beliefs of the person lacking capacity should be determined regarding the benefits of a covid-19 vaccine and what may have influenced these. In MM [2007] EWHC 2003 (Fam) Munby J as he was then held that, "if one does not believe a particular piece of information then one does not, in truth, comprehend or understand it, nor can it be said that one is able to use or weigh it. A useful discussion with the person lacking capacity might be, do they understand the consequences of declining a the covid-19 vaccine?

Abuse

Decision makers must be aware of potential undue influence or abuse. As well as is control or coercion being engaged by someone for their own personal benefit.

Vaccinating Someone

The person administering the vaccination should satisfy themselves the patient sufficiently understands the consequences of receiving that covid-19 vaccine and the vaccination procedure.

If someone lacks capacity, before the vaccination is carried out inquiries should be made concerning the patient’s; a) acceptability to being injected, b) any previous adverse vaccine reactions, c) does the patient have a fear of needles, d) have they experienced distress from previous vaccinations, e) is there anyone involved in their care who should be consulted. If challenged the person administering the vaccine should be able to demonstrate the vaccination was in the patient’s best interests.

Care Home Residents

The NHS has produced a ‘Covid-19 vaccination consent form’ relating to care home residents. It allows for HW attorneys to consent or decline consent for covid-19 vaccination of a resident. The form is then stored with the residents medical information. HW attorneys declining consent are required to provide the reasons for declining. The NHS have also produced a ‘Relative of a Care Home Resident unable to consent for themselves’ form. There is also forms for residents who can consent as well as relevant letters. 

Refusing Vaccination

Reasons for a patient to decline vaccination may include vaccine contraindications or the patient’s previous negative reaction to vaccinations. The individual may have expressed views, wishes, beliefs or values (religious, moral or ethical) on declining vaccination. Reference should be made to individuals holding an advance decision which declines vaccination.

Compulsory vaccination

There are no governmental provisions requiring someone to receive a covid-19 vaccine. Compulsory vaccination would interfere with an individual’s autonomy under Article 8 Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). For the vulnerable adult there is also a likely breach of Article 12 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Paragraph 25(b) says that, “All forms of support in the exercise of legal capacity (including more intensive forms of support) must be based on the will and preference of the person, not on what is perceived as being in his or her objective best interests”. The patient with capacity can if they so wish for whatever reasons decline vaccination. 

Mental Health Act 1983

Section 2 Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) says individuals may be detained, “…with a view to the protection of other persons.”. Vaccinating the patient with capacity under section 2 MHA against their will would need to justify an interference of Article 8 HRA. Reasons may include the individual is placing others at risk in that they are deliberately trying to infect others or catch covid-19 and that it is a proportionate response having exhausted all other options to isolate the individual concerned. There is currently no evidence that a covid-19 vaccination alleviates mental health conditions. The patient with capacity detained under section 3 MHA may not be vaccinated against their will unless a justification can be provided concerning interference with Article 8 HRA. The authority of an LPA attorney does not apply in regard to treatment or vaccine decisions for donor’s detained under the MHA. 

Fluctuating capacity 

With the individual whose capacity fluctuates or lacks sufficient capacity to make some medical decisions but retains capacity for others, the question of declining vaccination is more complex. Here the HW attorney or HW deputy should explain the consequences of not receiving the vaccine to the patient, the common side effects, contraindications and provide them with suitable information of the consequences of declining vaccination. They should also be able to show how they assisted the person to decide. 

Serious Medical Treatment and Advocates

In most instances patients with severe underlying health conditions who also lack capacity when vaccinated will be accompanied by a friend or relative. If the patient has no one an advocate or Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) should be appointed. Advocates or IMCA’s are required if there is a fine balance between patient treatment benefits and likely burdens and risks to them, where there is a choice of treatments and deciding between these, or where the proposed treatment would involve serious consequences for the patient. An advocate may also be required where there is no one accompanying the patient and the patient may be reluctant to receive the treatment.

Advance Decisions (Living Wills)

Has the person made an advance decision which specifically relates to refusing vaccinations?

To decline a medical intervention the advance decision (AD) should specifically refer to that medical intervention on the AD, if life threatening in writing. Unless an AD has been created after the start of the current covid-19 pandemic it is unlikely an AD will contain a specific clause regarding declining a covid-19 vaccine. AD’s can refer generally to declining vaccinations which may be followed if applicable. Applicable means the reader can identify ‘what is to be declined’ and under ‘what circumstances’. Even if the AD refers to declining vaccinations, there are circumstances where this may not be followed if there are reasonable grounds for believing the AD maker did not anticipate circumstances surrounding declining a covid-19 vaccine. 

If the AD refers to vaccination declines in general  the question becomes, does this refusal constitute a refusal of life sustaining treatment? If so then section 25 MCA is engaged. This states that an AD which declines life sustaining treatment should be in writing and witnessed. It should also state this treatment is declined, ‘even if my life is at risk’.

An AD to decline treatment is not valid where the maker with capacity has changed their mind, has made an HW LPA which confers authority on their attorney to give or refuse consent to the treatment to which the AD relates to, or has done anything else clearly inconsistent with the AD remaining their fixed decision. If the AD maker retains capacity the AD does not apply. If they lack capacity and the AD does not specifically refer to declining the covid-19 vaccination it can still be used as an indication of their views and wishes.

Vaccination as Life Sustaining Treatment

The starting point for declining medical intervention is that, if declined would this constitute a life sustaining treatment decision. That is, by declining this treatment intervention, would this potentially place the person’s life at risk? Advice should be sought from medical professionals as to is this a reasonably real risk or not. 

If declining vaccination is not a life sustaining risk HW attorneys and HW deputies could decline vaccination. If it is found to be a life sustaining treatment decision the HW deputies  may not decline vaccination and an application should be made to the Court of Protection. The HW LPA would need to specifically refer to declining that vaccination in which case the attorney can decline, otherwise they may not. In both instances the principles of MCA section 4 would need to be shown to have been applied. 

Restraint and Vaccination

Restraint may only be used to vaccinate someone subject to MCA s.5 and 6. Before any restraint is undertaken the person considering restraint must demonstrate there is a reasonable belief the person lacks capacity in regard to that particular matter and it will be in their best interests for the restraint to be conducted. See also MCA Code of Practice paragraph 5.38 and its Scenario box. If vaccinating a patient lacking capacity restraint should be the last option. An alternative approach taken in Livewell Southwest Community Interest Company v MD [2020] EWCOP 57 may be considered. Mostyn J held that a dental procedure could be undertaken, …covertly… as the patient was know to physically resist treatment and may place others at risk. Consideration should be given to the practicality of this approach.

Restraint must be a proportionate response to the patient's likelihood of suffering harm and the seriousness of that harm. During the actual vaccination the patient's arm should be relatively relaxed. Moving their arm around can prevent a suitable vaccination site being identified and may lead to medical complications. Moving their arm around can also risk breaking the vaccination needle. To prevent such harms, for example comforting words and reassurances may be used, followed by more directing words encouraging the patient to remain still. Only once all other options have been exhausted may minimal restraint be considered. When restraint is engaged this must be fully documented, giving reasons to justify why it was used.

Advice where the is no HW LPA or HW deputy

If there is no health and welfare LPA or deputy in place the following advice should be considered by the decision maker. They should be able to show how they have applied the MHA section 4 (best interests principles). How has the person lacking capacity been involved in the decision making process. Has the patient provided any written documentation on their views and wishes over vaccinations. What are the beliefs of the person lacking capacity concerning receiving a covid-19 vaccine? Is there anyone who should be consulted to provide information to assist in determining is this in the patient's best interests? If the vaccine was not given what are the consequences for the patient and how much of this do they understand?

We're now moving to coming out of a complete lockdown into a half way position. This is quite relieving but brings with it even more vigilance. Craybeck Law is aware this is a critical time. We know that many care homes have sadly lost residents. We hear about friends who have survived the coronavirus and occasionally an upsetting story where someone has not.

We've been visiting clients across London taking suitable precautions as possible. The trains have been fairly empty with lots of 2m distancing. The central London streets are deserted with very few cars on the roads. And now the country is moving into a new lockdown phase.

Craybeck Law recognises there remains the need for caution, the 2m distancing and checking our health regualry.

One thing which we have found that's changed is that we're all walking more. Walking to places we thought we'd only drive to. Discovering more of our own localities than ever before. Post Covid-19 and there hopefully will come a time of post Covid-19, it's likely to be one of more walking and cycling.

We've added three new downloads to our Craybeck Law website; drafting Lasting Powers of Attorney, Business Lasting Powers of Attorney and making a Deputyship applications.

The Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) booklets outline some of the difficulties individuals can find themselves in without a Lasting Power of Attorney.

The Deputyship booklet deals with situations where there is no LPA in place and there are financial decisions to be made, property to be sold or financial disputes to resolve.

Craig Ward, one of our solicitors has just finished updating his Law Society's textbook on drafting Lasting Powers of Attorney. This is now it's 4th edition. The aim is to publish this revised edition in October 2019.

The revised Lasting Powers of Attorney textbook from the Law Society covers the following points.

MCA 2005 principles
Assessment of mental capacity
Best interests
Taking instructions
Advice to the donor
Drafting, execution and registration
Resolving disputes
Attorneys and other decision-makers
Business lasting powers of attorney
Drafting a business lasting power of attorney
Objections, challenges and revocations
Advance decisions to refuse medical treatment
Enduring powers of attorney
Court of Protection deputies


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/craybecklaw.co.uk/web/wp-content/plugins/oxygen/component-framework/components/classes/code-block.class.php(115) : eval()'d code on line 11
Professional legal assistance - 0800 254 5262

PRINTERS

Shy occasional terminated insensible and inhabiting. So know do fond to half on.
Learn More

INBOX

Improve ashamed married expense bed her comfort pursuit mrs. Four time took ye your as fail lady.
Learn More

CERTIFIED

When be draw drew ye. Defective in do recommend suffering. House it seven in spoil tiled court.
Learn More

RECYCLE

In eldest be it result should remark vanity square. Unpleasant especially instance.
Learn More

IMAGES

Branch one shy edward stairs turned has law wonder horses. Devonshire invitation discovered out.
Learn More

T-SHIRT

Acceptance middletons me if discretion boisterous travelling an. She prosperous continuing.
Learn More

APARTMENT

Possession her thoroughly remarkably terminated man continuing. Removed.
Learn More

DICE

By an packages rejoiced exercise. To ought on am marry rooms doubt music. Mention entered an.
Learn More

VIDEO

Lady am room head so lady four or eyes an. He do of consulted sometimes concluded mr.
Learn More
Craybeck Law LLP is a central London law firm with an office in Benfleet Essex. We will come and visit you at home for no extra charge if you live within the M25 area or close to it.

Craybeck Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 646667)


© 2020 Craybeck Law LLP
apartmenttrashdiceinboxlicensefilm-playpictureusersshirt