Capacity to Consent of People with Dementia: a Narrative Review from an Ethical Perspective

Urfa Khairatun Hisan, N. Qomariyah, Kristina Elizabeth
{"title":"Capacity to Consent of People with Dementia: a Narrative Review from an Ethical Perspective","authors":"Urfa Khairatun Hisan, N. Qomariyah, Kristina Elizabeth","doi":"10.33533/jpm.v16i2.4744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People with dementia have impairment to execute daily life activities by presenting as a deterioration of mental processes, such as memory, thinking, reasoning, and judgment. Many participants in dementia research may lack the capacity to provide informed consent. Additional safeguards are needed for dementia research participants’ protection because of their vulnerability. Only after carefully weighing the risks and possible benefits for the participants in the research may it be decided to use vulnerable participants. The intention to prevent harm pushes against the removal of autonomy. This dilemma is the driving force behind this article's narrative review of the capacity to consent problems in dementia research. For this critical narrative review, we conducted a thorough search of Scopus, PubMed, and Wiley Open Library for literature addressing the ethical and legal issues on the capacity to consent of people with dementia. We outline the dilemmas and difficulties that surround them including the related ethical principles, the informed consent process, capacity to consent, and safeguards for the participant in research involving people with dementia.","PeriodicalId":33234,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Profesi Medika","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Profesi Medika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33533/jpm.v16i2.4744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People with dementia have impairment to execute daily life activities by presenting as a deterioration of mental processes, such as memory, thinking, reasoning, and judgment. Many participants in dementia research may lack the capacity to provide informed consent. Additional safeguards are needed for dementia research participants’ protection because of their vulnerability. Only after carefully weighing the risks and possible benefits for the participants in the research may it be decided to use vulnerable participants. The intention to prevent harm pushes against the removal of autonomy. This dilemma is the driving force behind this article's narrative review of the capacity to consent problems in dementia research. For this critical narrative review, we conducted a thorough search of Scopus, PubMed, and Wiley Open Library for literature addressing the ethical and legal issues on the capacity to consent of people with dementia. We outline the dilemmas and difficulties that surround them including the related ethical principles, the informed consent process, capacity to consent, and safeguards for the participant in research involving people with dementia.
痴呆症患者的同意能力:从伦理角度的叙事回顾
痴呆症患者通过表现为记忆、思考、推理和判断等心理过程的恶化,导致日常生活活动受损。痴呆研究的许多参与者可能缺乏提供知情同意的能力。由于痴呆症研究参与者的脆弱性,需要额外的保护措施。只有在仔细权衡研究参与者的风险和可能的益处之后,才能决定使用弱势参与者。防止伤害的意图推动了自治的取消。这一困境是背后的驱动力,这篇文章的叙述性审查的能力,同意问题在痴呆研究。为了这篇批判性的叙述性综述,我们对Scopus、PubMed和Wiley开放图书馆进行了彻底的搜索,以寻找有关痴呆症患者同意能力的伦理和法律问题的文献。我们概述了围绕他们的困境和困难,包括相关的伦理原则,知情同意过程,同意能力,以及涉及痴呆症患者的研究参与者的保障措施。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
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