Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10767880

Assessing capacity.

S S Miller·D B Marin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Health care professionals often encounter patients who refuse a recommended treatment plan. Overriding a patient's right to autonomy has ethical, legal, and moral consequences. Incapacity is the determination by a physician that a patient lacks the ability to make informed decisions about his or her health care. The fundamentals needed for evaluating and documenting patients' capacity to make decisions regarding their personal medical care are provided.

Explore related subjects

Advance DirectivesDecision MakingEmergenciesHumansInformed ConsentMedical RecordsMental CompetencyUnited StatesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S S Miller, D B Marin. 2000. Assessing capacity.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0733-8627(05)70120-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

A survey of use of a durable power of attorney to admit geropsychiatric patients.

Medical directors from 198 inpatient psychiatric facilities in 46 states completed a survey on the use of a durable power of attorney for health care to compel admission of unwilling patients with dementia. About half the facilities had a policy allowing use of a power of attorney for this purpose. Thirty-four percent believed that it was optional to use either a durable power of attorney or an involuntary commitment to force admission of demented patients, whereas 47 percent believed that such patients could be admitted against their will only through involuntary commitment.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed2001

Legal pitfalls of psychiatric research.

BACKGROUND: The increasing complexity of psychiatric research, including recent attempts to evaluate mental health legislation, suggests legal advice may be valuable in a wide range of research contexts. AIMS: We aim to illustrate both the legal pitfalls of research in psychiatry and the potential for solutions if the methods are carefully chosen. METHOD: Two examples of research are subject to legal analysis, one involving advance directives, the other the random discharge of compulsory out-patients. RESULTS: This analysis illustrates that participation in research may expose clinicians to additional forms of liability, but the legal risks can be minimised through changes in the methods or additional safeguards. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between academic law and psychiatry can enrich research agendas and avoid serious legal pitfalls. We argue that sound legal advice should be sought at the planning stage of research in psychiatry, but the fear of liability should not lead to overly defensive research practices. The aim should be to strike the right balance between avoiding unacceptable exposure to liability and stifling innovative research.

Advance Directives↗