Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:01:48.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Paradox of Consent for Capacity Assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Peter Koch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of decision-making capacity assessments (DMCA) in clinical medicine is an underdeveloped yet quickly growing practice. Despite the ethical and clinical importance of these assessments as a means of protecting patient autonomy, clinicians, philosophers, and ethicists have identified a number of practical and theoretical hurdles which remain unresolved. One ethically important yet largely unaddressed issue is whether, and to what extent physicians ought to inform and obtain consent from patients prior to initiating a capacity assessment. In what follows, I address the following question: Must, or should, physicians obtain consent for capacity assessments? I argue that physicians have an ethical obligation to obtain express patient consent for capacity assessments, and in doing so, I challenge the predominant view which requires physicians to merely inform patients without obtaining consent. I then identify an underlying philosophical paradox that complicates the clinician's duty to obtain consent: in short, consent is needed for an assessment of one's ability to consent. Finally, I recommend a practical solution to this paradox of consent for capacity assessments by proposing a model of double consent from both the patient and health care representative.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue 4: Symposium 1 - The Promise and Challenges of Microbiome-based Therapies. Symposium 2 - Regulation on International Direct-to-Participant Genomic Research , Winter 2019 , pp. 751 - 757
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brémault-Phillips, S.C. et al., “An Evaluation of the Decision-Making Capacity Assessment Model,” Canadian Geriatrics Journal 19, no. 3 (2016): 83–96; Charles, L. et al., “Physician Education on Decision-Making Capacity Assessment: Current State and Future Directions,” Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien 63, no. 1 (2017): 21-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appelbaum, P., “Assessment of Patient's Competence to Consent to Treatment,” New England Journal of Medicine 18, no. 18 (2007): 1834–1940; Spike, J., “Informed Consent is the Essence of Capacity Assessment,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45, no. 1 (2017): 95-105; Braun, M. et al., “Are Clinician's Ever Biased in their Judgments of the Capacity of Older Adult's to Make Medical Decisions,” Generations 33, no. 1 (2009): 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Spike, supra note 2.Google Scholar
American Medical Association, “Opinion 2.1.1 Informed consent,” Code of Medical Ethics, 2016, available at <https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-2.pdf> (last visited November 14, 2019).+(last+visited+November+14,+2019).>Google Scholar
Grisso, T. and Appelbaum, P., Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Charland, L.C., “Appreciation and Emotion: Theoretical Reflections on the MacArthur Treatment Competence Study,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics 8, no. 4 (1998): 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See supra note 1.Google Scholar
“Aid to capacity evaluation (ACE),” Joint Center for Bioethics, available at <http://www.jcb.utoronto.ca/tools/documents/ace.pdf> (last visited November 14, 2019).+(last+visited+November+14,+2019).>Google Scholar
See supra note 1.Google Scholar
Sessums, LL. et al., “Does this Patient Have Medical Decision-Making Capacity,” JAMA 306, no. 4 (2011): 420–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See supra note 3, at 1637.Google Scholar
See Appelbaum 2007, supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Appelbaum 2007, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. and Appelbaum, P.S., Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals (New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, 1998), at 82.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O., “Some Limits of Informed Consent,” Journal of Medical Ethics 29, no. 1 (2003): 4–7, at 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassassi, S. et al., “Assessment of the Capacity to Consent to Treatment in Patients Admitted to Acute Medical Wards,” BMC Medical Ethics 10, no. 1 (2009): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepping, P., “Consent in Psychiatry,” Psychiatric Bulletin 27 (2003) 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veatch, R. and Pitt, J. B, “The Myth of Presumed Consent: Ethical Problems in New Organ Procurement Strategies,” Transplant Proceedings 2 (1995): 1888–1892Google Scholar
Neilson, G. and Chaimowitz, G., “Informed Consent to Treatment in Psychiatry,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 60, no. 4 (2015): 1–11.Google Scholar
Rosoff, A.J., Informed Consent (A Guide for Health Care Providers) (Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Publications; 1981), at 14.Google Scholar
Sibley, A. et al., “Assent is Not Consent,” Journal of Medical Ethics 38, no. 1 (2012): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See supra note 3, at page 1638.Google Scholar
See Spike, supra note 1, at page 99.Google Scholar