Capacity to consent to or refuse treatment and/or research: Theoretical considerations

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 411-429

  Saks, Elyn R ^a,b,c   Jeste, Dilip V ^d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c New Center for Psychoanalysis   (United States)

^d San Diego   (Switzerland)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; COMPREHENSION; CONFERENCE PAPER; DECISION MAKING; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MENTAL DISEASE; MENTAL HEALTH; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT ABANDONMENT;

HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY; TREATMENT REFUSAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33748333098     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.708     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (50)

1. Annas, G. J., & Densberger, J. E. (1984). Competence to refuse medical treatment: Autonomy vs. paternalism. Toledo Law Review, 15, 561, 570-574.
2. Appelbaum, P. S. (1994). Almost a revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Berg, J. W., Appelbaum, P. S., & Grisso, T. (1996). Constructing competence: Formulating standards of legal competence to make medical decisions. Rutgers Law Review, 48, 345-396.
4. Cal. Prob Code Section 6100.5 (West Supplement 2004) (elements of testamentary cap).
5. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
6. Citizen's National Bank v. Pearson, 67 I11. App. 3d. 457 (1979).
7. Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1 (CA 1972).
8. Drane, J. F. (1985). The many faces of competency. Hastings Center Report, 15, 17-21.
9. Dunn, L. B., Nowrangi, M. A., Palmer, B. A., Jeste, D. V., & Saks, E. R. (in press). Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: A review of instruments. American Journal of Psychiatry.
10. Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).
11. Estate v. Rosen, 447 A.2d 1220 (Me 1982).
12. Fellows, L. K. (1998). Competency and consent in dementia. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 46, 922-926.
13. Fleetwood, J. (2001). Conflicts of interest in clinical research: Advocating for patient-subjects. Widener Law Symposium Journal, 8, 105-114. (Transference)
14. Freedman, B. (1981). Competence, marginal and otherwise. International Journal of Psychiatry, 4, 53-72.
15. Garner, B. A. (ed.). (2004). Black's law dictionary (8th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: Black's.
16. Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell.
17. Godwin v. Danbury Eye Physicians and Surgeons, P. C., 254 Conn. 131 (2000) (battery).
18. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1996). Values and limits of the MacArthur Treatment Competence Study. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2, 167-181.
19. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press. Guardianship of Roe, III, 421 N.E.2d 40 (Mass 1981) (pts must be competent to decide).
20. Hammond, K. R. (2000a). Coherence and correspondence theories in judgment and decision making. In Connoly, T., Arkes, H. R., & Hammond, K. R. (eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp.53-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Hammond, K. R. (2000b). Judgments under stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Jeste, D. V., & Saks, E. R. (2006). Decisional capacity in mental illness and substance use disorders: Empirical database and policy implications (paper for IOM Committee). Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 607-628.
23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246, 160-173.
24. Marson, D. C., Ingram, K. K., Cody, H. A., & Harrell, L. E. (1995). Assessing the competency of patients with Alzheimer's disease under different legal standards. Archives of Neurology, 52, 949-954.
25. Meiklejohn, A. M. (1989). Contractual and donative capacity. Case Western Law Review, 39, 307-387.
26. M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843).
27. Moore, M. S. (1984). Law and psychiatry: Rethinking the relationship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Morse, S. J. (1994). Culpability and control. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142, 1587-1660.
29. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) (1999). Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity (Vol. I). Rockville, MD: NBAC.
30. Page on Law of Wills. (2003). Sec. 12.17-12.18, Cincinnati: Anderson.
31. Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, 209 Cal.App.3d 1303 (1987).
32. Riskin, L. L. (1975). Informed consent: Looking for action. University of Illinois Law Forum, 1975, 580-611.
33. Rivers v. Katz, 495 N.E.2d 337 (New York 1986).
34. Roth, L. H., Meisel, A., & Lidz, C. W. (1977). Tests of competency to consent to treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 279-284.
35. Saks, E. R. (1991). Competency to refuse treatment. North Carolina Law Review, 69, 945-999.
36. Saks, E. R. (1993). Competency to refuse psychotropic medication: Three alternatives to the law's cognitive standard. University of Miami Law Review, 47, 689-761.
37. Saks, E. R. (1999). Competency to decide on treatment and research: The MacArthur capacity instruments. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. Vol. II, commissioned papers. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
38. Saks, E. R. (2002). Refusing care: Forced treatment and the rights of the mentally ill. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39. Saks, E. R., & Behnke, S. H. (1999). Competency to decide on treatment and research: MacArthur and beyond. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 10, 103-129.
40. Saks, E. R., Dunn, L. B., Marshall, B. J., Nayak, G. V., Golsan, S., & Jeste, D. V. (2002). The California Scale of Appreciation: A new instrument to measure the appreciation component of capacity to consent to research. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 166-174.
41. Saks, et al. (in press) Competency to refuse treatment: An empirical study of judges' understanding of the concept in California, Massachusetts, and New York.
42. Schwartz, R. L. (1985). Informed consent to participation in medical research employing elderly human subjects. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 1, 115-131.
43. Spar, J. E. (2000). Attorney's guide to competency and undue influence. NAELA Quarterly, 13, 7-11.
44. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
46. U.S. v. Waddell, 687. F. Supp. 208-209 (MDNC 1988).
47. Weyrauch, S. (2000). Decision making for incompetent patients: Who decides and by what standards? Tulsa Law Journal, 35, 765-789.
48. Williams, K. W. (2004). Managing physician financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials conducted in the private practice setting. Food and Drug Law Journal, 59, 45-77.
49. Winick, B. J. (1996). Advance directive instruments for those with mental illness. University of Miami Law Review, 51, 57-95.
50. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990).