No man's land: Troubling the borders of mental health and capacity law

Border thinking is a de-colonial strategy that interrogates epistemic and biopolitical aspects of borders, and examines everyday bordering practices. Harrington and Hampton (2024) have recently argued for its utility for understanding national borders in health law. While border thinking has been traditionally used to interrogate national and geographical boundaries, I propose that border thinking can also be productive for understanding jurisdictional borders that co-exist within a national territory. Examining the complex and contested border between mental health and capacity law, I argue that jurisdictional borders, like national ones, are historically contingent, built on unstable epistemologies, and rooted in the politics of belonging. Focusing in particular on the situation of autistic people and people with intellectual disabilities, I show how the border between mental health and capacity law is rooted in stigma and stereotypes, with devastating biopolitical effects for those who are legally and materially stuck in a jurisdictional borderland between these regimes. I critique current proposals for reforming this border, as reinforcing these stigmas and stereotypes whilst failing to address the material needs and structural exclusion faced by disabled people.