Legal and Ethics Considerations in Capacity Evaluation for Medical Aid in Dying.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
Jacob M Appel
{"title":"Legal and Ethics Considerations in Capacity Evaluation for Medical Aid in Dying.","authors":"Jacob M Appel","doi":"10.29158/JAAPL.240038-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluating decisional capacity for patients seeking medical aid in dying (MAID) raises challenging legal, logistical, and ethics questions. The existing literature on the subject has been shaped largely by early disagreements over whether effective capacity assessment for such patients is ever possible, which in turn stemmed from debates over the ethics of MAID itself. In attempting to establish meaningful criteria for assessments, many jurisdictions have sought either to apply or to adapt models of capacity evaluation designed for other forms of medical decision-making, such as the widely used \"four skills\" model, failing to account for the fundamental differences in kind between these other decisions and MAID. This article seeks to reexamine these questions with a focus on two logistical matters (the appropriate credentialing for the evaluator and the potential liability of the evaluator) and three clinical matters (level of understanding, clinical scrutiny and certainty, and impairment) in an effort to raise legal and ethics concerns that remain unresolved, even as MAID is permitted in an increasing number of jurisdictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47554,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","volume":" ","pages":"311-326"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.240038-24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evaluating decisional capacity for patients seeking medical aid in dying (MAID) raises challenging legal, logistical, and ethics questions. The existing literature on the subject has been shaped largely by early disagreements over whether effective capacity assessment for such patients is ever possible, which in turn stemmed from debates over the ethics of MAID itself. In attempting to establish meaningful criteria for assessments, many jurisdictions have sought either to apply or to adapt models of capacity evaluation designed for other forms of medical decision-making, such as the widely used "four skills" model, failing to account for the fundamental differences in kind between these other decisions and MAID. This article seeks to reexamine these questions with a focus on two logistical matters (the appropriate credentialing for the evaluator and the potential liability of the evaluator) and three clinical matters (level of understanding, clinical scrutiny and certainty, and impairment) in an effort to raise legal and ethics concerns that remain unresolved, even as MAID is permitted in an increasing number of jurisdictions.

临终医疗救助能力评估中的法律和伦理考虑因素。
对寻求临终医疗救助(MAID)的患者进行决策能力评估,会带来法律、后勤和伦理方面的挑战性问题。关于这一主题的现有文献主要是由早期关于是否有可能对此类患者进行有效的能力评估的分歧所形成的,而这种分歧又源于对临终医疗协助本身的伦理问题的争论。在试图建立有意义的评估标准时,许多司法管辖区都试图应用或改编为其他形式的医疗决策而设计的行为能力评估模型,如广泛使用的 "四种技能 "模型,但却没有考虑到这些其他决策与 MAID 之间的本质区别。本文试图重新审视这些问题,重点关注两个后勤问题(评估者的适当资格认证和评估者的潜在责任)和三个临床问题(理解水平、临床检查和确定性以及损伤),努力提出法律和伦理方面仍未解决的问题,即使 MAID 已被越来越多的司法管辖区所允许。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
29.60%
发文量
92
期刊介绍: The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL, pronounced "apple") is an organization of psychiatrists dedicated to excellence in practice, teaching, and research in forensic psychiatry. Founded in 1969, AAPL currently has more than 1,500 members in North America and around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信