Regulating the disenfranchised: reciprocity & resistance under the Mental Capacity Act

This paper interrogates the legitimacy of formal ethical regulation regarding people with dementia under the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 in England and Wales. Under the Act, research among people diagnosed with dementia must be approved by Health Research Authority committees, irrespective of whether that research engages with health organisations or service users. As examples, I discuss two ethnographic dementia studies that do not engage with healthcare services, but which nonetheless require HRA approval. These instances raise questions regarding legitimacy and reciprocity in the governance of dementia. Through capacity legislation, the state exerts control over people with dementia, automatically delineating them as healthcare subjects because of their diagnoses. This diagnosis functions as a form of administrative medicalisation, rendering dementia a medical entity and those diagnosed with it the property of formal healthcare. However, many people with dementia in England and Wales do not receive related health or care services beyond diagnosis. This institutional imbalance of high governance and low support undermines the contractual citizenship of people with dementia, wherein state-citizen rights and responsibilities should be reciprocal. In response, I consider resistance to this system in ethnographic research. “Resistance” here is not necessarily deliberate, hostile, difficult or perceived, but rather encompasses micropolitical effects that are contrary to power or control, sometimes emerging from systems themselves rather than individual resistive actors. Resistance can be unintentional, through mundane failures to satisfy specific aspects of governance bureaucracies. It can also be deliberate, through refusals to comply with restrictions that seem cumbersome, inapplicable or unethical, potentially raising questions of malpractice and misconduct. I suggest that resistance is made more probable due to the expansion of governance bureaucracies. On the one hand, the potential for both unintentional and intentional transgression increases, while on the other hand, the capacity for those transgressions to be discovered and rectified decreases, because the maintenance of control over such a system requires vast resources. Behind this ethico-bureaucratic tumult, people with dementia themselves are largely invisible. People with dementia often have no interaction with committees that determine their research participation. This further renders ethical governance a particularly disenfranchising facet of the dementia research economy. The state stipulates that people with dementia must be treated differently because of their diagnoses, without consulting those people. In response, resistance to unethical governance could be intuitively deemed ethical per se, but I suggest that such a simplistic binary is somewhat misleading.