Mental Capacity Act,Anorexia Nervosa and the Choice Between Life‐Prolonging Treatment and Palliative Care: A NHS Foundation Trust v Ms X

The Court of Protection decided in A NHS Foundation Trust v Ms X that an anorexia nervosa patient lacked the capacity to refuse treatment for her eating disorder, but that it was not in her best‐interests to be subject to force‐feeding to prolong her life. The Court, vindicating previous judgments in similar cases, considered that the eating disorder rendered the patient incapable of deciding on nutrition and, therefore, that she lacked the capacity to refuse treatment for anorexia nervosa. This paper questions the narrow way in which the patient's decision was characterised by the Court in this and previous cases, which led to an application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that is incompatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because, based on a diagnosis only, anorexia nervosa patients were denied the right to decide where the balance lies between quality and duration of their own lives.     

The Place of Wishes and Feelings in Best Interests Decisions: Wye Valley NHS Trust v Mr B

In Wye Valley NHS Trust v Mr B the Court of Protection decided that it was not in the best interests of Mr B to receive amputation surgery against his will, notwithstanding that he would die without the treatment. The judge met with Mr B in person and his best interests decision placed significant weight on Mr B's wishes and feelings. This case note considers this influential case in the context of ongoing debate about the place of wishes and feelings in best interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It considers the history of the best interests principle, its interpretation by the Supreme Court in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James, ongoing debates about its compatibility with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and recent proposals by the Law Commission for statutory amendments to the Mental Capacity Act.     

Honey v. Vinegar: Testing Compliance-Gaining Theories in the Context of Freedom of Information Laws

Freedom of information laws are useful to the extent that they are followed. This study, based on compliance-gaining theories, employs two field experiments to examine the effect of persuasion tactics and litigation threats on agency adherence to public records laws. In Study 1, a journalist requested use-of-force reports from all police agencies in a state, mailing agencies either friendly or threatening letters, randomly assigned. In Study 2, a journalist requested superintendent contracts from school districts, mailing agencies randomly assigned versions of friendly, neutral or threatening letters. In both experiments the threatening letter resulted in slightly higher response rates, lower copy fees and faster response times, however, the friendly letter resulted in more helpful behavior from agencies. The article concludes by discussing implications for journalists, compliance-gaining theory in a legal realm, and freedom of information.