Can procedural and substantive elements of decision-making be reconciled in assessments of mental capacity?

Author:

Banner Natalie F.

Abstract

AbstractCapacity legislation aims to protect individual autonomy and avoid undue paternalism as far as possible, partly through ensuring patients are not deemed to lack capacity because they make an unwise decision. To this end, the law employs a procedural test of capacity that excludes substantive judgments about patients' decisions. However, clinical intuitions about patients' capacity to make decisions about their treatment often conflict with a strict reading of the legal criteria for assessing capacity, particularly in psychiatry. In this article I argue that this tension arises because the procedural conception of capacity is inadequate and does not reflect the clinical or legal realities of assessing capacity. I propose that conceptualising capacity as having ‘recognisable reasons’ for a treatment decision provides a practical way of legitimately incorporating both procedural and substantive elements of decision-making into assessments of capacity.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law

Reference41 articles.

1. Is Mr Spock Mentally Competent? Competence to Consent and Emotion;Charland;Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology,1998

2. Autonomy and the Authority of Personal Commitments: From Internal Coherence to Social Normativity

3. Bounds of Justice

4. Decision-making capacity

5. Commentary on Re MB (Medical Treatment);Kennedy;Medical Law Review,1997

Cited by 26 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Reasonableness in Capacity Law;The Modern Law Review;2023-06-28

2. Affect, Values and Problems Assessing Decision-Making Capacity;The American Journal of Bioethics;2023-06-26

3. London Borough of Islington v EF [2022] EWHC 803 (FAM): falling through the great safety net of the inherent jurisdiction;Medical Law Review;2023-05-31

4. Our Right to Say Yes, Our Right to Say No;Sex as Work;2022-11-22

5. To Die or Not to Die: A Kantian Perspective on Euthanasia;Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research;2021-11-07

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3