To purportedly protect the rights of the vulnerable.
A surprisingly laudable reason for a government.
Particularly, with no media pressure, scandals, petitions, or campaigns that warranted any legislation, let alone such a monster of oppression.
Whilst now 8 years on, there is huge pressure and an urgent need to protect our vulnerable from a plethora of scandals, Winterbourne, statistics that 3 learning disabled, die needlessly per day and concerned relatives, if not excluded, resorting to spy cameras.
If this Act were about protection it is a catastrophic failure.
So, why was the cost and time of this Act, thought so necessary, it was pursued for years and implemented subject to review, despite two years of House of Lords objections?
And why did its need ignore the fact that the inherent High Court jurisdiction, Enduring Powers of Attorneys, the doctrine of necessity and The Office of Public Guardian had already adequately protected the vulnerable, for centuries.
And still do except in the UK.
Far from protecting the vulnerable, the Act has served to encage them, and make them, far more vulnerable.
So what was, the purported reason for the Act ?
A government concern, that due to the ‘unstructured’ nature of protection, decisions vulnerable people could make for themselves were being made by others.
And, if a person became incapable of making a decision others should be prevented from making this decisions without the vulnerable’s, considerable involvement.
The fact that today, such an implausible respect for an individual’s autonomy has through the subversive implementation of the Act resulted in the total removal of a vulnerable person’s autonomy, sadly, reveals the government’s real agenda.
The very concerns, the government sought to remedy, are now given flesh, by the Act.
It is being used, not only, not to involve vulnerable in decisions concerning them, but it also, allows LAs/ care providers, to make all the vulnerable’s decisions for life.
‘Incapacity, is needed for the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.
It is the gateway, to an individual’s every future decision being made by the state.
Allowing a vulnerable adult, unlucky enough to need ‘support’to be made a captive consumer of any state care, without reprieve, escape or complaint.
A person’s worst nightmare.
Every decision made for you, by strangers, whose overriding interest is profit .
And, the MCA has been drafted, to allow potentially, anyone’s, decisions to be made for them.
As it provides any state agent, care/support worker, social worker, nurse, GP, psychologist, counsellor, alzeimer friend, even neighbour, can assess whether an individual is ‘capable’.
If they appear to them to be mentally impaired as a result of a non exhaustive, all embracing list- learning disability, mental health problem, brain injury, dementia, alcohol or drug misuse, effects of treatment/medication or in fact any other illness or disability.
Not only is the list of ‘assessors’ effectively anyone, the reasons for ‘incapacity’ is limitless.
Already, psychiatry/mental health is farcically extensive the US having created 375 mental disorders, diagnosed on a symptoms based subjective basis.
How vague, and subjective are these extensive impairments ‘learning disability’, ‘any other illness’ and the ‘side effects of medication’ ?
The Act has been drafted to allow anyone, who comes into contact with a member of the public, to assess them as incapable of making decisions.
Beyond terrifying, and amazing is the power, it gives the state and their informers.
The ability to remove anyone’s autonomy by stealth and deem them a non person.
See latest rulings from Mr Justice Charles on Deprivation of Liberty Orders
Worse than Orwell’s ‘1984’ monitors.
The state ‘us’ is given the right to assess the ‘them’; without the ‘them’ even knowing, and the ‘them’ are not even given the right to challenge the assessment.
And the courts, then remove all a person’s decision making rights, by illegal, blanket, general assessments, in a secret court.
The Act is not protecting our ‘vulnerables’ rights but removing them.
For NHS/LA private profit.
And, as the state decides, who is ‘vulnerable’ and it could be you.