Two Jessica, Curtice Martin
Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust,New Haven Unit,Princess of Wales Community Hospital,Bromsgrove,UK.
BJPsych Bull. 2019 Aug;43(4):177-181. doi: 10.1192/bjb.2019.4. Epub 2019 Feb 20.
SummaryThis article reviews a 2017 Court of Protection case which assessed and decided issues relating to the Islamic faith and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The case involved a 39-year-old Muslim man with learning difficulties. It centred on his ability to make decisions about two specific aspects of his faith - capacity for fasting and for the removal of pubic and axillary hair. The judgment describes how s.4 of the Act was applied in deciding these decisions under the doctrine of best interests. In doing so, it elucidates key principles which can be applied to similar cases of this and other faiths.Declaration of interestNone.
摘要
本文回顾了2017年保护法庭的一个案例，该案例评估并裁决了与伊斯兰教信仰及《2005年精神能力法案》相关的问题。该案例涉及一名39岁有学习困难的穆斯林男子。它聚焦于他就其信仰的两个特定方面做出决定的能力——禁食能力以及去除阴毛和腋毛的能力。该判决描述了如何根据最有利原则运用该法案第4条来做出这些决定。在此过程中，它阐明了可应用于该宗教及其他宗教类似案例的关键原则。
利益声明
无。
