5.2 Describe the legal and ethical considerations of restricting an individual’s rights and freedoms

This guide will help you answer 5.2 Describe the legal and ethical considerations of restricting an individual’s rights and freedoms.

Supporting people in adult care often brings up questions about their rights and freedoms. There are times when restrictions may be necessary—perhaps to maintain safety or manage risk. Yet, every restriction must be examined carefully. This guide covers the legal and ethical factors you need to weigh before limiting anyone’s choices or actions.

Human Rights Law

Everyone in the UK is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. This law gives each person a set of core rights. These include the right to liberty, respect for private life, freedom from degrading treatment and freedom of expression. In an adult care setting, these rights apply to every person you support, whatever their age, background, or care needs.

Any restriction placed on an individual must meet strict legal tests. Restrictions cannot be imposed without clear and legitimate reasons.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is central to decision-making in care services. It sets out how you must act when supporting people who may lack capacity to make certain choices.

Key principles of the MCA:

• Always presume that a person has capacity unless proven otherwise.
• Give all possible support so the person can decide for themselves.
• Do not treat someone as unable to decide just because their choice seems unwise.
• Make decisions in the person’s best interests if they lack capacity.
• Choose the least restrictive option.

“Capacity” means the ability to decide something for oneself. Judging capacity must be decision-specific, not a general judgement.

Assessing capacity is a legal requirement before restricting rights, such as limiting freedom of movement or setting boundaries about contact with others. The reason for restriction must be clear, justifiable and necessary. Workers must keep accurate records of how decisions are made.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)

Some restrictions amount to what is known as a “deprivation of liberty”. This happens if a person is under continuous supervision and is not free to leave a place, usually for their safety.

Care homes and hospitals must apply for authorisation if someone’s liberty will be restricted in this way. DoLS ensures independent checks, with people’s wishes and feelings considered. It also allows for challenge and review.

Key DoLS processes include:

• Assessing the need for deprivation of liberty
• Involving the individual, their family or advocate
• Independent assessment and authorisation by a local authority
• Continued monitoring and review

Depriving someone of liberty is not an easy or automatic process. The safeguards are there to make sure rights and freedoms are not limited more than needed.

From 2024 onwards, DoLS is being replaced by the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS), but the underlying legal and ethical principles remain similar: always minimise restriction and promote well-being.

The Care Act 2014

The Care Act 2014 builds on rights-based practice. It puts well-being at the heart of adult care. This includes:

• Physical and mental health
• Personal dignity
• Control over daily life

Any restriction in a care plan must balance risk with the person’s wishes. For example, if someone wants to go out alone even though there are known risks, it is not always right to stop them, unless the potential harm outweighs their right to choose.

The Act requires you to involve the person in every decision, and, if needed, their representatives or advocates.

Safeguarding Adults

Safeguarding means protecting people from abuse or neglect. Sometimes this may involve restricting certain actions or rights, like stopping someone from having visitors who may harm them. This kind of restriction must only serve to prevent harm and must be proportionate.

The safeguarding process should always:

• Involve the individual as much as possible
• Consider their wishes
• Avoid blanket decisions
• Be reviewed regularly

Any restrictive measure—such as locking doors, withholding finances, or limiting contact—must be justified, discussed and recorded.

Informed Consent and Advocacy

People have the right to make choices about their lives, even when those choices involve risk. Seeking informed consent means providing clear, accessible information about the potential consequences of actions or restrictions.

There are times when a person cannot give informed consent. In those cases, involve an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) or another appropriate advocate to support their wishes and protect their rights.

An advocate can:

• Help explain what restrictions may be needed and why
• Challenge restrictions that are not necessary
• Represent the person’s views to the care team

Always consider the use of advocacy, especially where rights or freedoms will be limited.

Proportionality and Necessity

Any restriction must be:

• The smallest one possible to achieve the purpose
• Clearly justified
• The least restrictive option

For example, if someone is at risk of falling, placing them in a locked room is not proportionate. Safer options might include using sensor mats or providing supervision.

You should regularly review if the restriction is still needed or if it can be reduced or removed.

Ethical Duty to Promote Autonomy

Ethically, care workers should promote choice and independence. Autonomy means allowing people to make their own decisions and to live the life they choose, as far as possible.

Practical examples of promoting autonomy:

• Supporting people to take reasonable risks
• Giving clear information to help informed choice
• Considering the person’s values, culture and history

Respect for autonomy goes alongside your duty of care—which is to prevent harm but not to overprotect or control people unnecessarily.

Duty of Care Versus Rights

Your duty of care means taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. But this must not override a person’s basic rights unless there is a clear and evidenced risk.

You must balance protection and respect for individuality. Consider:

• Does the person understand the risk?
• Is the risk serious and likely?
• Are there other ways to reduce the risk without restricting rights?
• Has the restriction been agreed by the person, their family or advocate where possible?

Keep detailed records of how and why actions were taken.

Least Restrictive Practice

This means using the minimum level of restriction needed to keep people safe. The idea comes from both the Mental Capacity Act and professional codes of conduct.

Examples of least restrictive practice:

• Using verbal redirection instead of restraint
• Involving people in creating their own risk plans
• Offering choices and exploring alternatives before applying limits Always review and adapt restrictions based on changing needs.

Equality Act 2010

This law requires you to treat everyone fairly and not discriminate on grounds such as disability, age, gender or race. Sometimes, restrictions can have unfair effects, even if not intended.

Before deciding on a restriction, ask:

• Will this action treat the person differently?
• Might it limit life choices or social opportunities more than is reasonable?
• Have adaptations or supports been considered?

Promotion of equality includes making reasonable adjustments instead of limiting a person’s rights.

Record-Keeping and Transparency

Good record-keeping is essential. Write down:

• The reasons for restriction
• Who was involved in decision-making
• How the person’s views were considered
• What alternatives were explored
• When and how the restriction will be reviewed

Transparency helps protect both the service user and the worker.

Being able to explain your actions, with evidence, is important if any decision is challenged.

Staff Training and Support

Make sure that everyone in your team understands:

• Legal duties under human rights and capacity laws
• How to balance rights and risks
• What to do if they believe a restriction is not justified

Training should cover non-restrictive ways to manage behaviour and support independence.

Supervision and open discussion can reduce unnecessary restrictions, improving outcomes for individuals.

Policy and Practice

Your workplace will have policies about restrictive practices. Be familiar with these and make sure they reflect current law and good practice. Regularly review procedures to see if restrictions can be reduced or ended.

Examples of good policy:

• Clear definitions of restrictive practice
• Requirements for consent or best-interest meetings
• Steps for regular review
• Reporting and escalation routes for concerns

Individualised Approach

No two people are alike. Never apply restrictions as a standard response. Instead, look at each person’s needs, wishes, history, and unique situation.

Steps to follow:

• Complete individual risk assessments
• Hold meetings with the person, advocates, and family
• Respect cultural or religious needs
• Create flexible plans that adapt as circumstances change

Consent and Least Restriction Examples

Some restrictions are part of daily life in care settings. These can include locked doors, bedrails, or supervision outside the home. Each measure must be checked carefully.

Examples:

• Bedrails: Used if someone may fall, but only if the person agrees or lacks capacity and it’s best for them.
• Locked front doors: Acceptable for people who lack capacity to understand risks, but still provide supervised walks outdoors and regular reviews.
• Controlled medication: Only if agreed to in care plans, with regular checks for side effects and ongoing consent.

Moral and Ethical Questions

Placing restrictions does not only require legal checks. Ask yourself:

• Does this action respect the person’s dignity and individuality?
• Would I want this restriction if I were in their place?
• Is this a temporary measure or could it become permanent without review?
• Are there creative solutions to reduce restriction?

Your leadership shapes the culture of your team. Encourage open discussions about rights, and never accept blanket restrictions.

Consequences of Unlawful or Unethical Restrictions

If restrictions are imposed without proper basis, there are risks for both the individual and the organisation:

• Legal action for breach of human rights
• Harm to the person’s well-being and mental health
• Loss of trust in your service
• Disciplinary or regulatory consequences for staff
• Damage to reputation

Taking rights seriously builds better relationships and outcomes for everyone.

Final Thoughts

Supporting people in care means protecting them from harm, but also respecting their freedoms. Every restriction must be legal, fair and necessary—nothing more. Balancing care and choice is your core responsibility.