PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9670887

Competency and consent in dementia.

Abstract

Health care for demented older persons presents a range of ethical dilemmas. The disease process affects cognitive abilities, making competency a central issue. The syndrome of dementia carries a complex social overlay that colors perceptions of these patients and of their capacity for making decisions. An argument is made for a coherent, ethically based decision-making process that can be applied across the whole spectrum of dementia severity. The major ethical principles implicated in assessing a patient's ability to consent to treatment are reviewed. A sliding scale model of capacity is presented, in which the patient's ability to decide is weighed against the risk associated with the treatment decision in question. This model preserves the autonomy of the demented patient while minimizing the potential for harm. In situations where the patient is deemed incapable, two approaches that can be applied to making treatment decisions are contrasted. The 'prior competent choice' standard stresses the values that the patient held while competent. The 'best interests' standard moves the focus to the patient's subjective experience at the time the treatment is considered. The relative merits of these two concepts are evaluated in the context of dementia. Surveys of actual decision-making practice are contrasted with ethical and legal principles. The challenges inherent to applying the best interests standard are discussed. Despite the pitfalls, this standard offers an opportunity to restore the demented patient's sense of self.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L K Fellows. 1998. Competency and consent in dementia.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02734.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

"Not-for-resuscitation" orders in Australian public hospitals: policies, standardised order forms and patient information leaflets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and content of policies, standardised order forms (SOFs) and patient information leaflets (PILs) pertaining to "not-for-resuscitation" (NFR) orders in Australian public hospitals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional postal survey conducted across Australia from August to December 2005, using a one-page questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of Medical, Nursing or Clinical Services of all public hospitals in Australia with 60 or more beds, excluding psychiatric, military and private hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of documented NFR policies, by hospital characteristics, and content of these policies, SOFs and PILs. RESULTS: 222 hospitals were surveyed, and 157 responded (71%). Of these, 85 (54%) had NFR policies, 62 (39%) had SOFs, and four (3%) had PILs. Hospitals with more than 200 beds were more likely to have NFR policies than those with 60-200 beds (P = 0.04). More metropolitan than rural hospitals had NFR policies (P = 0.01). More hospitals with 60-100 beds had SOFs than hospitals with 101-200 beds (P = 0.03). "NFR" was defined in 53% of policies, while 97% of policies explicitly stated where NFR orders were to be documented, 89% stated who was allowed to make them, 37% stated that advanced care directives ("living wills") were to be respected, and 89% stated that competent patients should be involved in discussions regarding their NFR status. The most common items noted in SOFs were the name and signature of the issuing medical practitioner (92%) and documentation of the discussion with the patient (81%). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in the content of hospital policies, SOFs and PILs pertaining to NFR orders. Aspects of current policies show room for improvement.

Advance Directives↗

Modifications to advanced life support in renal failure.

The outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been reported to be worse in patients with renal failure compared with those with normal renal function. It is likely that this increased mortality may be at least partly attributable to sub-optimal and highly variable treatment strategies used in cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure, but this issue has not previously been explored. Such patients undoubtedly pose a challenge to advanced life support (ALS) providers, and renal unit staff are not trained to provide specialist advice after a patient has sustained a cardiac arrest. There are few studies investigating the epidemiology, safety or outcome of cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure and there are no generally accepted resuscitation guidelines for this special circumstance. In this article we discuss the unique problems of resuscitating patients with renal failure and propose a suitable management strategy.

Advance Directives↗