Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in Practice - Coursework Example

Topic: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in Practice Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Deprivation of liberty safeguards is a legislation which was put forward to govern and protect mentally handicapped individuals, who are not capable of making sound and effective decisions by their selves, from being subjected to unnecessary restrictions, which may amount to abuse of their freedom of movement (TSO, 2008). This is necessary because even if a person is not capable of making sound decision, depriving him of his liberty should only be done when his life is in danger. This essay is a critical evaluation of deprivation of liberty safeguards based on a special case involving a person who suffers from Vascular Dementia. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in Practice A person is considered to be deprived of his or her liberty if his case fits various characteristics such as forceful detention such that he cannot fulfill his wishes such moving around without accompaniment, or whereby he is not allowed to socialize freely with other persons based on an assessment which has been conducted and proved that he may be subjected to more harm than good when he is free (TSO, 2008). For example, Mrs. P is an 80 year old lady who has been diagnosed with Vascular Dementia. After a stint in hospital due to increased confusion at home, she has been moved to a residential home. Upon review it has been discovered that her liberty is being restricted by the use of a keypad system in a residential home stopping her from going out by herself. The staff in the home has stated that she has a tendency to wander hence why Mrs. P is not allowed to go out independently. Vascular Dementia is a medical condition that affects the brain of a human being as a result of poor flow of blood (Paul, 2004). A person suffering from this condition may exhibit symptoms such as loss of memory, confusion as well as walking about and getting lost or even experiencing seizures similar to those of epileptic persons among others. Therefore, a person who has been diagnosed with such a condition requires special attention especially when they are leaving the house due to the fact that they may go out and forget their way back. It may also be dangerous for them to undertake ordinary chores such as cooking or ironing clothes as well as using other electrical appliances due to the fact that they may forget to switch them off thereby increasing the possibility of causing fire accidents at home. Mrs. Ps case is made worse by the fact that she is an old woman, who is vulnerable to harsh environmental conditions such as excessive exposure to sun as well as extreme cold weather. Walking alone in the neighborhood may be dangerous for her for she may fail to access help even when it is accorded to her because at least one must be able to give directions to her house or provide a name in order for good Samaritans to be able to help otherwise she may have to spend some time in police custody before investigations can be conducted to locate her family. According to the Deprivation of liberty safeguards, which allows a person or an organization to deny liberty to a person for her own welfare, using the key pad system to prevent her from leaving the house unaccompanied is justifiable. The key pad system works by allowing the user to input a special predefined code in order to gain access through the door. Without the code, it is impossible for a person to leave or enter the house especially due to the fact that most of them have the capability of raising alarm after entering a wrong code for a certain number of times after which the system switches off automatically. Furthermore, Mrs. P may not be able to remember the code even if it were given to her due to her medical condition. However, no matter how genuine the reasons behind such actions may be, it is necessary for the people taking care of her to acquire official authorization from the supervisory body, failure to which the situation would be considered to be illegal (Swaney, 2009). Before considering deprivation of liberty as an alternative, other viable options, which are of less magnitude, should be considered meaning that this should come as the last option among all other possibilities. The safeguards as per say applies to hospitals, registered care homes as well as private residences, which take care of possible victims (Swaney, 2009). In addition, it is the role of these entities to ensure that everything is done according to law since they could be held accountable in case a person wishes to seek legal assistance on the account of illegal detention. Roles of the Social Worker in This Case and Setting The social worker in this context is endowed with the responsibility of caring for Mrs. P as well as ensuring that she is protected from harm that may arise due to her condition. The reason as to why Mrs. P was brought to this caring home was that her medical condition has already been confirmed by doctors especially after she has been noted to have increased confusion at home. As such, the social worker has a foundation to restrict her liberty but for her to do so, there are various conditions she must meet so as to ensure that she is not going against the law especially the mental capacity act of 2005. To begin with, the social worker must ensure that she seeks authority to deprive Mrs. P of her liberty. She can give reasons which have been discussed herein such as the inability of her patient to make independent decisions and the possibility of getting lost once she goes out on her own, which has already been proved in several occasions. In order to achieve this, it is important to conduct a research into the woman’s back ground so as to know whether there are family members who have direct control on her life or who may oppose the act of depriving her liberty (Lepping, 2009). This is due to the fact that the act denies anyone to exercise authority over someone else’s liberty if there are responsible people taking care of that person. In this case, it is evident that there are no such people in Mrs. Ps life since if they were present, she would not have ended up getting lost for several times. In addition, deprivation of liberty is not supposed to be administered to a person who is below the age of 18 years (Lepping, 2009). It is the role of the social worker to ensure that this is upheld and with regard to this case, the patient is above this age limit and therefore, she is liable to being restricted under the mental capacity act. However, the social worker may be in a position to defend her cause against claims of deprivation of liberty since just by locking up the door does not mean that she is doing so. With regard to this case, Mrs. P has been accorded every other freedom apart from going out on her own. Moreover, it is in her best interests that the social worker has taken the responsibility of protecting her from wandering and getting lost on her own. Vascular dementia in Mrs. Ps age may be difficult to reverse thereby making it a permanent condition. As such, the social worker has the role of ensuring that she is given permanent jurisdiction on Mrs. Ps liberty by convincing the relevant authorities on the circumstances at hand. How the Deprivation of Liberty Can Be Used To Achieve Best Outcomes for Vulnerable People Vulnerable people especially those with mental problems requires special care regardless of the source of such care. More often than not, immediate family members of such people undertake the responsibility of taking care of their own. However, there comes a time when such occurrences are perceived as an unbearable burden especially due to the fact that everyone has his or her financial responsibilities to take care of thereby necessitating absence from the responsibility of providing such help. In such cases, professional help may be sought such as confinement in a caring home or may be as a result of a doctor’s advice. However, it is not always that cases of such nature find simple solutions as there is the possibility of resistance, which may develop from different quarters or the patient himself thereby necessitating forceful restriction or deprivation of liberty (Swaney, 2009). Due to these possibilities, the deprivation of liberty safeguard was put into place so as to guide the professionals on the best practices to achieve their goals as well as protecting those who are vulnerable from unlawful detention. It is important for caring homes and hospitals as well as other interested parties to make sure that efforts are made to maximize the benefits that are offered by the Deprivation of liberty provisions. These provisions are applicable to people who are aged 18 years and above and have developed mental disorders, and lack the capability to make sound decisions and thus they cannot enjoy the liberty to make good proper solid plans related to their care. These provisions are applicable to hospitals and ho care institutions which have been registered under the Care Standards Act of 2000 (Swaney, 2009). A similar deprivation of liberty is unlawful not unless if the institution has already obtained an authorization. It is not all individuals who have been mentally incapacitated require such an authorization. With reference to the Code of Practice, the provisions are implemented when a circumstance of deprivation of liberty cannot be avoided and every effort has to be made to endure that the deprivation of liberty was unavoidable. The authorization of deprivation of liberty should be in accordance with the rules set by the court of protection. In order to ensure that the deprivations of liberty principles are used to protect the vulnerable individual, several tests are conducted for the benefit of the patient. These include age, mental health, mental capacity and health, best interests, eligibility and objection. The best interest assessment first establishes whether there is a case of deprivation of liberty that is occurring or is about to occur secondly it has also to be considered whether it is the best interest of the affected individual to be deprived his/her liberty (Swaney, 2009). This is done in an effort to protect the individual from harming himself and also it is necessary to ascertain that the detention of the individual is appropriate and prevents the affected individual from seriously harming himself. The assessor of best interest takes into consideration the views and propositions of both professionals and family members who are involved in the care of the affected person. People with mental disorder are prone to the risk of harming themselves or putting their lives at a risk when they make wrong decisions due to their condition. Hence when they are deprived off their liberty through confinement in hospitals and health institutions where they continue to receive treatment and supervision, if there is lack of evidence of any resistance towards confinement then the individual is awarded deprivation of liberty status. A relevant representative of the individual has to be appointed after the authorization is granted (Lepping, 2009). The fundamental responsibility of this representative is to ensure that the person to be represented is well taken of and all the procedures regarding the authorization have been followed. The representative may further request a review of the authorization by making a request from the Court of Protection. It is compulsory that the individual be aged 18 years and above and they are readily willing to act as a representative, in addition he must be eligible for the position. It is compulsory that the affected individual is deprived off his/her liberty within the shortest time possible in an effort to protect him from any harm (TSO, 2008). The progress of the patient has to be monitored frequently where the authorization can be cancelled immediately if the affected person shows signs of improvement as well as a positive response to the medication being offered. The authorization must be put in writing, confirming the basic reasons for the deprivation of liberty; there should also be a clear indication as to why the authorization body considers that the individual has to be put under confinement. Urgent authorization has to take a maximum of 7 days and can only be extended on special circumstances with an additional seven days (TSO, 2008). The managing authority has the responsibility to monitor an individual and it has the power to request for a review of the authorization and if it is not genuine the authorization of liberty deprivation may be terminated. The relevant representative has the fundamental rights to seek an appeal from the Court of Protection and legal aid is always available for the appeals. Tensions may arise between the individual being deprived off his liberty with the institutions offering the care. Vulnerable individuals might not be capable to make right decisions and they may protest against the move of depriving them their liberty (Swaney, 2009). The family members and relatives may oppose the decision to deprive one of their own his liberty. If the managing body gives an authorization, the family may further file a lawsuit against the decision hence generating a conflict. The representative of the individual may disagree with decisions made by other parties involved. For instance, the managing body may propose for an extension after a review has been conducted while the representative may be against this move hence creating tension between them. Family members may also disagree with decisions made to extend the period of confinement and they may choose to nullify the deprivation of liberty of the affected individual. Bibliography Lepping, P. (2009) ‘Deprivation of liberty safeguards.’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(3): 170-173 Paul, R. (2004) Vascular Dementia: Cerebrovascular Mechanisms and Clinical Management, Humana Press Swaney, W. (2009) Safeguards of Liberty; Liberty Protected by Laws, Bibliolife TSO (2008) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Code of Practice to Supplement the Main Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice, Renouf Pub Co Ltd Read More