The court of protection was set up in 2007 under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It hears 23,000 cases a year in which they make decisions for people unable to manage their own affairs, e.g. people with mental disabilities. Until last year all the hearings took place in private, but now the judges decide for every case whether or not the media are allowed in the courtroom. Although, the media can come to some of the hearings, the judges still have the final say in what will and what will not be published. Therefore, some believe that the court is corrupt, and that is why they say the hearings should be public.
To some people the court of protection is dangerous and indefensible because they make rulings about abortions, switching off life-support machines, where and whom to live with, etc. However, the court makes very personal decisions about people’s lives. So if one lacks capacity, doesn’t (s)he have the right to the same level of privacy and dignity as the rest of us? I think they do! Perhaps the court sometimes makes wrong decisions, but it is much better to improve their decisions by hearing more experts on the subject (currently they listen to only one expert per case) than letting every case go public.
I completely agree with you. I even believe that especially people who cannot manage their own affairs need more protection because they cannot defend themselves like normal people can. Under no account the court should base their decisions on the public opinion.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenWhat Jolien says!
BeantwoordenVerwijderen