Abstract

In May 2012, in A Local Authority v E and Others,' a best interests ruling was made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to coercively treat a severely anorexic woman, E, against her will. The best interests decision was purportedly reached through a process of judicialbalancing; however there is something deeply unsatisfactory about this account. This commentary delves beyond the expressed balancing method and applies the tools of philosophical hermeneutics to both understand and challenge the best interests ruling in A Local Authority v E and Others. First, the hermeneutic concept of 'prejudice' makes explicit the implicit judgments determining the best interests decision in this case. Secondly the commentary challenges the best interests decision in two ways: the hermeneutic emphasis on dialogical understanding provides grounds for questioning the judge's failure to integrate the views of E and her wider decision community ; the ruling could be deemed invalid due to the implicit application of a status-based rather than statutory functional test to assess E's current and retrospective capacity.