Skowron Paul
School of Law, Centre of Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Med Law Rev. 2019 Feb 1;27(1):32-58. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwy016.
Judges in England and Wales tell three apparently contradictory stories about the relationship between autonomy and mental capacity. Sometimes, capacity is autonomy's gatekeeper: those with capacity are autonomous, but those without capacity are not. Sometimes, capacity is necessary for autonomy but insufficient; for voluntariness, freedom from undue external influences, is also required. Finally, sometimes autonomy survives incapacity, and a person without capacity is nevertheless treated as autonomous. These three accounts coexist, so no story of evolution, in which one account comes to replace another, can be told. Similarly, no story of judicial factions is plausible, for judges switch account to suit the facts of a particular case. This article gives examples of all three accounts, traces their recent history, and shows how each serves one or two characteristic purposes. It then shows how they can be combined into a coherent descriptive account of the relationship between autonomy and mental capacity in domestic law.
英格兰和威尔士的法官们讲述了三个关于自主性与心智能力之间关系的明显相互矛盾的故事。有时,能力是自主性的守门人:有能力的人是自主的,而没有能力的人则不是。有时,能力是自主性的必要条件但并不充分;因为还需要自愿性,即不受不当外部影响。最后,有时自主性在无行为能力的情况下依然存在,一个没有行为能力的人仍被视为自主的。这三种说法并存,所以无法讲述一个一种说法取代另一种说法的演变故事。同样,关于司法派别之争的说法也不可信,因为法官会根据具体案件的事实而改变说法。本文给出了这三种说法的例子,追溯了它们的近期历史,并展示了每种说法是如何服务于一两个特定目的的。然后,本文展示了如何将它们结合起来,形成一个关于国内法中自主性与心智能力之间关系的连贯描述性说明。