Neither consenting nor protesting: an ethical analysis of a man with autism

This article critically examines the 25 June 1998 decision by the House of lords regarding the psychiatric admission of a man with autism.(1) Mr L was able neither to consent to, nor refuse, that admission and the disposition of his case illuminates the current debate regarding best interests of vulnerable adults by the judiciary and the psychiatric profession. This article begins with the assumption that hospitalisation was nor the optimum response to Mr L's condition, provides alternative approaches to the interpretation of best interest and examines principles of liberty, anti-discrimination, and equal protection.