Abstract
Decision-making capacity (DMC) is the gatekeeping element for a patient’s right to self-determination with regard to medical decisions. A DMC evaluation is not only conducted on descriptive grounds but is an inherently normative task including ethical reasoning. Therefore, it is dependent to a considerable extent on the values held by the clinicians involved in the DMC evaluation. Dealing with the question of how to reasonably support clinicians in arriving at a DMC judgment, a new tool is presented that fundamentally differs from existing ones: the U-Doc. By putting greater emphasis on the judgmental process rather than on the measurement of mental abilities, the clinician as a decision-maker is brought into focus, rendering the tool more of an evaluation guide than a test instrument. In a qualitative study, the perceived benefits of and difficulties with the tool have been explored. The findings show on the one hand that the evaluation aid provides basic orientation, supports a holistic perspective on the patient, sensitizes for ethical considerations and personal biases, and helps to think through the decision, to argue, and to justify one’s judgment. On the other hand, the room for interpretation due to absent operationalisations, related ambiguities, and the confrontation with one’s own subjectivity may be experienced as unsettling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
When patients are judged to be incompetent their will is still relevant. However, decision making will be guided by their will as previously expressed in advance directives or as presumed by surrogates. The patient may be consulted about the decision that needs to be taken but will at this point not have the authority (and responsibility) to make the decision him- or herself. .
„U” stands for the Swiss German term „Urteilsfähigkeit“(decision-making capacity).
The tool was developed alongside guidelines on the evaluation of decision-making capacity in medical practice issued by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences in 2019 and is consistent with the guidelines’ set of core principles (cf. https://www.samw.ch/en/Publications/Medical-ethical-Guidelines.html).
The U-Doc has been included in the official guidelines on DMC published 2018 by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS): https://www.samw.ch/de/Ethik/Autonomie-in-der-Medizin/Beurteilung-der-Urteilsfaehigkeit.html (last accessed on March 31, 2019).
References
Berghmans, Ron, Donna Dickenson, and Ruud Ter Meulen. 2004. Mental capacity: In search of alternative perspectives. Health Care Analysis 12: 251–263.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3: 77–101.
Charland, Louis C. 2001. Mental competence and value: The problem of normativity in the assessment of decisional capacity. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law. 8: 135–145.
den Hartogh, Govert. 2016. Do we need a threshold conception of competence? Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy. 19 (1): 71–83.
Etchells, Edward, Peteris Darzins, Michel Silberfeld, et al. 1999. Assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14 (1): 27–34.
Faden, Ruth R., and Tom L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freyenhagen, Fabian, and Tom O’Shea. 2013. Hidden substance: mental disorder as a challenge to normatively neutral accounts of autonomy. International Journal of Law in Context. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552312000481.
Grisso, Thomas, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 1995a. Comparison of standards for assessing patients‘capacities to make treatment decisions. American Journal of Psychiatry 152: 1033–1037.
Grisso, Thomas, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 1995b. The MacArthur competence study. III. Abilities of patients to consent to psychiatric and mental treatments. Law and Human Behavior 19: 149–174.
Grisso, Thomas, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 1996. Values and limits of the MacArthur Treatment Competence Study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2: 167–181.
Grisso, Thomas, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 1998a. MacArthur competence assessment tool for treatment (MacCAT-T). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Grisso, Thomas, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 1998b. Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hermann, Helena, Manuel Trachsel, Christine Mitchell, and Nikola Biller-Andorno. 2014. Medical decision-making capacity: Knowledge, attitudes, and assessment practices of physicians in Switzerland. Swiss Medical Weekly. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2014.14039.
Hermann, Helena, Manuel Trachsel, and Nikola Biller-Andorno. 2015. Physicians’ personal values in determining medical decision-making capacity: A survey study. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102263.
Hermann, Helena, Manuel Trachsel, Bernice S. Elger, and Nikola Biller-Andorno. 2016. Emotion and value in the evaluation of medical decision-making capacity: A narrative review of arguments. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00765.
Lamont, Scott, Yun-Hee Jeon, and Mary Chiarella. 2013. Assessing patient capacity to consent to treatment: An integrative review of instruments and tools. Journal of Clinical Nursing 22: 2387–2403.
Marson, Daniel C., Lauren Hawkins, Bronwyn McInturff, and Lindy E. Harrell. 1997. Cognitive models that predict physician judgments of capacity to consent in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb05171.x.
Nicholson, Timothy R.J., William Cutter, and Mathew Hotopf. 2008. Assessing mental capacity: The mental capacity act. BMJ 336 (7639): 322–325.
Sessums, Laura L., Hanna Zembrzuska, and Jeffrey L. Jackson. 2011. Does this patient have medical decision-making capacity? JAMA 306: 421–427.
Shaw, David, Manuel Trachsel, and Bernice Elger. 2018. Assessment of decision-making capacity in patients requesting assisted suicide. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 213 (1): 393–395.
Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS). 2019. Assessment of capacity in medical practice. Medical-ethical guidelines. Bern: SAMS.
Sturman, Edward D. 2005. The capacity to consent to treatment and research: A review of standardized assessment tools. Clinical Psychology Review. 25: 954–974.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all partners and collaborators in the project as well as workshop participants and the commission members of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, who gave valuable comments on different draft versions of the tool. We are also grateful to Mona Neubauer, Marco Ehrenmann, Jon Wirthner, and Nadja Müller for layouting and co-designing the form.
Funding
The paper has arisen in the context of a research project on „Decision-Making Incapacity at the End of Life and its Assessment in Switzerland funded within the National Research Programme NRP 67 “End of life” of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF-Grant 406740_139294).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hermann, H., Feuz, M., Trachsel, M. et al. Decision-making capacity: from testing to evaluation. Med Health Care and Philos 23, 253–259 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09930-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09930-6