Open AccessVindicating the right to bodily security of the incapable in research – Part 2
Author(s) -
Austen GarwoodGowers
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
international journal of mental health and capacity law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2056-3922
DOI - 10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i14.186
Subject(s) - obligation , statutory law , law , statutory interpretation , interpretation (philosophy) , section (typography) , ethos , political science , law and economics , sociology , business , philosophy , linguistics , advertising
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 generally exhibits a stronger ethos of protecting the incapable in intrusive research than the last but one version of the Bill. However, sections 31(5) and 6 of the Act replicate clauses 31(4) and 31(5) of that version. As I noted in Part 1 of this article, these clauses are difficult to reconcile with the primary principle. Here I examine what effect, if any, they will have both on the process of authorising research projects involving intrusive research upon the incapable adult and on the ultimate use of the incapable adult in such research. This will involve analysis of the Act’s provisions in the light of both ordinary rules of statutory interpretation and the interpretative obligation imposed by section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.