Deception in care giving: legal and ethical complexities in the administration of covert medication

Abstract

Covert medication (CM) - the surreptitious administration of drugs in food or drink is often framed as a ‘moral gamble’ and remains a pervasive yet controversial necessity in the care of older people with cognitive impairments. As global populations age and neurodegenerative conditions increase, the clinical reliance on CM has become structurally entrenched. This article evaluates the practice within the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, specifically through the dual lenses of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It provides an original contribution to the literature by synthesising the clinical application of CM with the statutory duty of candour under Regulation 20, proposing a ‘tripartite test’ of Imminence, Gravity and Exhaustion to bridge the current regulatory dissonance. It explores the fundamental tension between the clinical duty of beneficence and the patient’s right to bodily integrity, specifically addressing the tension between the statutory duty of candour and clinical strategies predicated on concealment. By distinguishing between the physiological risks of overt coercion and the 'quiet deception' of CM, the paper rebuts deontological claims that CM constitutes an irreconcilable violation of rights. Instead, applying a rule-utilitarian framework, it argues that CM is a benevolent necessity when used to prevent certain physiological harm and preserve residual dignity. Furthermore, the article analyses judicial responses, integrating recent precedents such as Re A [2022] and An NHS Trust v XB [2020], to define a framework of necessity required to legitimise the practice. Ultimately, the paper concludes that while CM carries a significant moral and relational cost, it remains an ethically justifiable measure of last resort within a transparent English and Welsh legal architecture that prioritises accountability and consultation over administrative convenience.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2026 · DOI ↗