Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 439–444 | Cite as

Decision-Making Capacity and Unusual Beliefs: Two Contentious Cases

Australasian Association of Bioethics and Health Law John McPhee (Law) Student Essay Prize 2016
Critical Response

Abstract

Decision-making capacity is a vital concept in law, ethics, and clinical practice. Two legal cases where capacity literally had life and death significance are NHS Trust v Ms T [2004] and Kings College Hospital v C [2015]. These cases share another feature: unusual beliefs. This essay will critically assess the concept of capacity, particularly in relation to the unusual beliefs in these cases. Firstly, the interface between capacity and unusual beliefs will be examined. This will show that the “using and weighing of information” is the pivotal element in assessment. Next, this essay will explore the relationship between capacity assessment and a decision’s “rationality.” Then, in light of these findings, the essay will appraise the judgments in NHS v T and Kings v C, and consider these judgments’ implications. More broadly, this essay asks: Does capacity assessment examine only the decision-making process (as the law states), or is it also influenced by a decision’s rationality? If influenced by rationality, capacity assessment has the potential to become “a search and disable policy aimed at those who are differently orientated in the human life-world” (Gillett 2012, 233). In contentious cases like these, this potential deserves attention.

Keywords

Decision-making capacity Capacity assessment Refusal of treatment Health law 

References

  1. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buchanan, A.E., and D.W. Brock. 1989. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Charland, L.C. 1998. Is Mr Spock mentally competent? Competence to consent and emotion. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 5(1): 67–81.Google Scholar
  4. ____. 2001. Mental competence and value: The problem of normativity in the assessment of decision-making capacity. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 8(2): 135–145.Google Scholar
  5. ____. 2015. Decision-making capacity. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/decision-capacity/. Accessed May 27, 2016.
  6. Culver, C.M., and B. Gert. 1990. The inadequacy of incompetence. The Milbank Quarterly 68(4): 619–643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. ____. 2004. Competence. In The philosophy of psychiatry: A companion, edited by J. Radden. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Department for Constitutional Affairs. 2007. Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice. London: TSO.Google Scholar
  9. Freedman, B. 1981. Competence, marginal and otherwise. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 4(1–2): 53–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gavaghan, C. 2015. In word, or sigh, or tear: Depression and end of life choices. In Inspiring a medico-legal revolution, edited by G. Laurie, and P. Ferguson, 231–255. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Gillett, G. 2012. How do I learn to be me again? Autonomy, life skills, and identity. In Autonomy and mental disorder, edited by L. Radoilska. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grisso, T., and P.S. Appelbaum. 1998. Assessing competence to consent to treatment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Holroyd, J. 2012. Clarifying capacity: Values and reason. In Autonomy and mental disorder, edited by L. Radoilska. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jonas, M.F. 2007. Competence to consent. In Principles of health care ethics, edited by R.E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper, and J.R. McMillan. West Sussex: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Richardson, G. 2010. Mental capacity at the margin: The interface between two acts. Medical Law Review 18(Winter): 56–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rossiter, G. 2005. Capacity issues under the PPPRA. The New Zealand Law Journal June: 204–208.Google Scholar
  17. Skegg, P.D.G. 2015. Capacity to consent to treatment. In Health law in New Zealand, edited by P.D.G. Skegg, and R. Paterson. Wellington: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  18. Tan, J., T. Hope, and A. Stewart. 2003. Competence to refuse treatment in anorexia nervosa. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26(6): 697–707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioethics CentreUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations