THE LAW COMMISSION WOULD LIKE SUGGESTED NAMES FOR THE REPLACEMENT FOR Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
The Law Commission would like suggestions for a name, for the scheme it is suggesting should replace the existing [and much criticised] Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Despite the LC's recent statement saying there was a cut-off date for suggestions, I have just swapped some e-mails with the LC team, and they are happy to receive suggestions for the new name for the next couple of months or so.
For anybody who isn't familiar with the 'problem' here, then it is as follows.
When people lose their mental capacity - for example, severe dementia - sometimes, to use my phrase, 'people have their liberty restricted, to protect them from coming to harm'. The current system is called 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards', which isn't very clear: neither, it turns out, is the 'ethos', which is that 'only the minimum level of restriction necessary to protect the person should happen', being applied in many real-world cases. So the problem, in a nutshell, is what name would do all of:
1) Indicate that the person's freedoms are being restricted;
2) Indicate that the minimum necessary level of restriction should be the aim;
3) Would 'make sense to lay readers of the new name' (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards isn't 'exactly obvious', is it).
I'm so far, struggling to come up with a suggestion - the LC has explained (see below - and ignore that 23 June deadline) the situation itself:
Finally, perhaps the issue that provoked most debate at consultation was the nomenclature associated with the DoLS. Most consultees felt that the term "deprivation of liberty safeguards" was at best unhelpful and, at worst, meant that people were being denied access to legal rights. Some consultees were similarly critical of our proposed new terminology, including the label "protective care". A number of consultees suggested the name "liberty safeguards", whilst the next favourite was "capacity safeguards". However, there was no consensus on the terminology that should be adopted. Therefore we invite further views (by 23 June 2016) on the name that should be given to the new scheme. Please send
your suggestions to [log in to view email address].
So, if you can crack this one, please send your suggestion to:
[log in to view email address]
Well being care is a softer approach or My life journey care. I'm a volunteer with Healthwatch I partially find the term Deprivation of Liberty Safegards to formal. What ever it changed to it should convey the word care and should be understood by lay people.
Janet
I would rename it in terms people would understand ie.Safeguarding The protection of peoples Rights and Values,Keeping it simple and to the point,is always the best .
I came up with my own suggestion yesterday evening - interestingly, a word I'm not at all keen on is 'safeguarding'.
I'm about to send this to the Law Commission:
I have a naming suggestion.
I think 'Liberty Safeguards' is too close to DoLS, but I also have a dislike of 'safeguarding' as a term (it seems too easily to mean opposing concepts, depending on the reader).
Also, we say 'red van' and we are describing a van - putting 'liberty' at the end, seems flawed. That also seems to be a description of PART of the law/scheme, and not of the scheme as a whole.
The law is about depriving people of their liberty, but it wants this to be 'minimally applied'.
So my suggestion is:
Restrained Restricted Liberty
The law authorises 'restricted liberty' but it requires such authorisations 'to be 'restrained' as much as possible'.
I'm not sure there is a really good name - Restrained Restricted Liberty is probably the best I myself can come up with,
Best wishes, Mike
I'm not sure that they're focusing on the important bit to be honest as surely overhauling the (unworkable) legislation would be better(Or perhaps they're doing that too and I'd just misread it.)
Whilst they're at it, I would suggest changing the term "mental capacity" as I find the use of the word "mental" here to be extremely misleading. Is there something wrong with "cognition"? Or "decision"? Or even "thinking"?
Hi Wendy,
They are suggesting a drastic overhaul of DoLS - not so much re-badging, as a new scheme. It started as a suggestion for 3 different 'new schemes': one was a sort of 'before DoLS is necessary' scheme which would probably have been aimed at what I would term 'people with questionable capacity' (there was a strong element of 'planning ahead' in that] - for example, the early stages of dementia. The other two were a scheme to replace DoLS, and a suggestion that hospitals and EoL might need a separate scheme.
The 'before DoLS' scheme has been dropped on cost grounds, and it looks like the separate one for hospitals/EoL has been dropped as well. But the one that remains - I think the Consultation called that one 'Restrictive Care' from [my unreliable] memory. I've just Googled 'Law Commission Restrictive Care' and found the LC consultation webpage (I think the consultation documents are still downloadable, even though the consultation has ended):
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/mental-capacity-and-deprivation-of-liberty/
The LC is fully aware that DoLS doesn't work at all well, and is very unsatisfactory - the webpage the link goes to does say:
'Our consultation paper concluded that the DoLS are 'deeply flawed'. We provisionally proposed that they be replaced with a new system, to be called 'Protective Care'. Broadly speaking, protective care had three aspects: the supportive care scheme, the restrictive care and treatment scheme, and the hospitals and palliative care scheme.'
It seems (see my comments above) that the 'Supportive Care' and 'Hospitals and Palliative Care' scheme will not be moved forwards - they are looking for a name for the 'Restrictive Care' part, which is 'the replacement for the current DoLS' system.
The actual consultation was lengthy and complex, with a lot of rather 'murky' legal issues, and I found it 'very much a challenge' to write my response(s) to the consultation.
Restricting Liberty Maximising Opportunity (RLMO)
Restricting Activities to Safeguard Life (RASL)
Safeguarding Freedoms Keeping Safe (SFKS)
Maximum Opportunity Minimum Restriction to be safe (MOM RTBS)
It's is a difficult one , whatever we chose should have in the time that it is a curtailment or cessation of rights one would usually enjoy. I have thought through (I work with children and adults in safeguarding and looking at using this procedure to protect children who are st risk of trafikking and exploitation ie removing phones, equipment , access to certain areas) and the only thing I could think of as a suggestion for a changed name was : IRR (interim restriction of rights) . I think interim is important as it would have the driver that the restriction is reviewed periodically and give the comforting message to the service user (where they have some capacity) it is not in place for all time and had to be reviewed - the legislation then should have this mechanism in place. I am aware that for some they may never regain capacity but again I think they are also entitled to this. Hope this is helpful in the ongoing debate.
I like RLMO .
Actually, I like RLMO as well.
But I'm still not sure that it is plain enough.
I wonder if a two-part name - like a book with an 'alternative title' - could ever get past the 'selection panel' for this one ?
I would probably like, ideally, something along the lines of:
Restrained Restricted Liberty: Restricting Liberty Maximising Opportunity
Or, how about:
Maximising Opportunity while Restricting Liberty (MORL)
I quite like Liberty Care or Liberty Care Order. Adding the Care part makes it less legal and more empathatic to the client/patient. It also looks jargon free so more user friendly.
I may be too late but as an older member of staff, who reflects regularly on legislation we used to complete and paperwork that was more informed in a laymans terms 'Infringement of rights' always worked for me.
As this is what we are monitoring.
Hi Anita,
I don't think you are too late, and I certainly hope you are not - so 'keep the suggestions coming'. I'm not quite sure how the name the LC puts forward will finally be decided - I'm guessing they will do some limited 'canvassing of opinion' if what looks like a really good name is suggested to them, and the name had not previously been in the running.
I'll point the Law Commission team at this DIC chain again, although I feel sure they must have seen the same type of 'arguments' during the consultation, so it really is 'the best name' they'll want at this stage.
On June 27 they sent me this:
'Many thanks for your email and for pointing this out to our team.
We will remain flexible with the deadline to submit responses regarding the name of our scheme'
I had pointed out, in my e-mail to them (everything which follows):
I'm a little puzzled.
I've now looked at the easy-read version (the 'web' version as the 'print' version was not successfully downloading) and also the 'normal' version of the Interim Policy Statement.
You said in your e-mail to me (24 June 2016, 16:01) that the easy-read versions were published 'today' (i.e. June 24). The easy-read version I downloaded, asks on its page 23 for suggestions for a name for the scheme to be sent to Olivia.
The 'non-easy-read' version, which is dated 25 May, also asks for suggestions for a name, but it says:
'Therefore we invite further views (by 23 June 2016) on the name that should be given to the new scheme. Please send your suggestions to
[log in to view email address].'
The easy-read version has no cut-off date in it, was apparently only published on 24 June, and is it seems asking for submissions after that cut-off date of 23 June.
Seems 'somewhat odd'.
In answer to renaming DOLS wasn't it renamed recently? and new forms all came out last year ,some people arnt even aware of these changes yet.
It may not be the most understandable title but generaly the public are not aware of these until they are introduced to them by a healthcare professional who should take the time to explain what they entail.
To my mind renaming them is a waste of time , paper , and money . If they have the million or so floating free that it would cost to change all documentation I suggest they pay the wages of 25 RGNs to work in Aand E where they are so desperately needed and actualy affect peoples lives rather than pay lip service to doing it. The process wont change the way we keep people safe only try and make us look better whilst we do it.
I'm copying this here from a 'separate thread' - not sure why this appeared separately, as it seems to simply be an answer for this thread:
New name for Dols
05/07/16 - 08:43
Liz Wynn
I agree care of liberty sounds far less legal and user friendly then Deprivation of Liberty
And to Kirsty - it isn't about renaming DoLS. The Law Commission will towards the end of this year, be putting forward its ideas about how the existing Deprivation of Liberty (Safeguards) aspect of the MCA should be altered, to make it work better. So they will be proposing a change in the law - what they want, is the new name for the changed 'scheme'.
If any of this actually happens - it seems to me that an awful lot of Parliamentary Time will be taken up thrashing out 'brexit', and exactly what will get 'sidelined' isn't yet known.