For decades, legal systems have relied on the “best interests” standard when someone is deemed unable to make decisions. On paper, this approach seems logical: protect the person, prevent harm, and act responsibly.
But the reality is more complicated. “Best interests” can too easily become a substitute for listening, prioritising safety over autonomy, and control over voice. Supported decision-making (SDM) offers a more nuanced, human-centred alternative.
The best interests framework assumes that others know what is best for a person. Judges, guardians, or service providers step in, interpreting risk, preferences, and welfare on behalf of the individual.
Problems emerge when:
- The person’s own voice is overlooked
- Risk tolerance is assumed rather than discussed
- Values, priorities, and context are filtered through a system designed for certainty
In other words, “best interests” often sacrifice autonomy for predictability, and protection for empowerment.
Supported decision-making begins with a different assumption: people have the right to make their own decisions, even if imperfect, with support as needed.
This approach shifts the focus from:
- What will protect this person? → to → How can this person be supported to decide?
- How do we minimise risk? → to → How do we respect the person’s preferences?
- Who should decide? → to → How can support enable the person to decide?
The practical impact is profound. Individuals who are genuinely supported in decision-making experience greater confidence, inclusion, and satisfaction, and the process reinforces dignity rather than reducing it.
Critics often argue that SDM exposes people to unnecessary risk. Yet the traditional “best interests” model is not risk-free: it risks disempowerment, dependency, and the long-term loss of agency.
Supported decision-making does not ignore risk. It acknowledges it, shares responsibility, and keeps the person at the centre. Autonomy and safety are not opposites; they are partners in ethical decision-making.
Implementing SDM requires more than legislation. Courts, public authorities, service providers, and families must embrace a cultural shift:
- From control to collaboration
- From assumptions to dialogue
- From prediction to facilitation
Without this cultural shift, the “best interests” approach continues to dominate in practice, regardless of legal reforms.
“Best interests” thinking treats people as objects of protection. Supported decision-making treats people as authors of their own lives.
The law, organisations, and society must move beyond assumptions and risk aversion. Real protection does not silence. Real care does not override choice.
Supported decision-making is not merely a legal innovation; it is a moral and practical imperative. It reminds us that autonomy, voice, and dignity matter, even when decisions are difficult or risky.
Leave a comment