PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Checkland

Publications and source records attributed to D Checkland.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

On risk and decisional capacity.

Limits to paternalism are, in the liberal democracies, partially defined by the concepts of decision-making capacity/incapacity (mental competence/incompetence). The paper is a response to Ian Wilks's (1997) recent attempt to defend the idea that the standards for decisional capacity ought to vary with the degree of risk incurred by certain choices. Wilks's defense is based on a direct appeal to the logical features of examples and analogies, thus attempting to by-pass earlier criticisms (e.g., Culver & Gert, 1990) of risk-based standards. Wilks's argument is found wanting on the grounds that he misconstrues the logic of such capacity, especially in accounting for conceptual and pragmatic ties with issues of decisional authority. A diagnosis is offered as to the source of Wilks's error (the assumption that mental competence is a species of wider genus of "competence"), and an alternative way of accounting for risk within the predominant contemporary legal framework is sketched.

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed1999

Faulty judgment, expert opinion, and decision-making capacity.

An assessment of decision-making capacity is the accepted procedure for determining when a person is not competent. An inferential gap exists between the criteria for capacity specific abilities and the legal requirements to understand relevant information and appreciate the consequences of a decision. This gap extends to causal influences on a person's capacity to decide. Using a published case of depression, we illustrate that assessors' uses of diagnostic information is frequently not up to the task of bridging this inferential gap in a justifiable way. We then describe cases of faulty judgement which challenge the understanding of diagnostic causal influences. These cases help to clarify the nature of the expertise required for capacity assessments. In practice, the requirements of decision-making capacity are often abandoned to other considerations due to a lack of requisite expertise. The legal policy supporting decision-making capacity as a means to protective intervention is justified only if the requisite expertise is developed. We propose the requisite expertise to be developed in the long term as a distinct multidisciplinary endeavour.

Beneficence↗
PubMed1996

Mental competence and the question of beneficent intervention.

The authors examine recent arguments purporting to show that mental incompetence (lack of decision-making capacity) is not a necessary condition for intervention in a person's best interests without consent. It is concluded that these arguments fail to show that competent wishes could justifiably be overturned. Nonetheless, it remains an open question whether accounts of decision-making capacity based solely on the notion of understanding and appreciation can adequately deal with various complexities. Different possible ways of resolving these complexities are outlined, all of which need further exploration.

Beneficence↗
PubMed1995

Reflections on segregating and assessing areas of competence.

Various complexities that arise in the application of legal and/or clinical criteria to the actual assessment of competence/capacity are discussed, and a particular way of understanding the nature of such criteria is recommended.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1994

Presumptions respecting mental competence.

This paper addresses the role(s) played by presumptions regarding mental competence in the context of clinical assessment of decision-making capacity. In particular, the issue of whether or not the usual common law presumption of competence is appropriate and applicable in cases of reassessment of persons previously found incompetent is discussed. Arguments can be made for either retaining a presumption of competence or adopting a presumption of incompetence in reassessment cases. In addressing the issue and the arguments, the authors conclude that the question is really a public policy issue which requires legislative resolution. In writing this paper, the authors have drawn on their joint clinical experience at the Baycrest Competency Clinic. Though the authors' jurisdiction is the province of Ontario, their intent is to raise awareness and to prompt consideration of this issue both inside and outside Ontario.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗