The Continuing Debate over Risk‐related Standards of Competence

The Continuing Debate over Risk‐related Standards of Competence In the 1991 article which initiated the debate over risk-related standards of competence in this Journal, I identified several problems associated with them.1 In a subsequent discussion article, Ian Wilks defended risk-related standards.2 He did not address some of my objections, including the following: (1) To attribute decision-making capacity to patients who satisfy only a weak standard may be inconsistent with the concept of decisionmaking capacity as the possession of various cognitive or mental abilities (e.g., a set of more or less coherent and stable values and goals; and a capacity to understand, communicate, reason, and deliberate).3 (2) When patients satisfy only a weak standard, their consent/assent may not warrant concluding that: (a) They have authorized providing or forgoing treatment. (b) They are (partially) responsible for the decision and its consequences. (c) Their decisions are generally reliable indicators of their best interests.4 (3) Proponents of a risk-related standard conflate two distinct questions: (a) Does a patient have decision-making capacity with respect to a particular choice or set of choices? (b) Is it justified to override the patient's decision for paternalistic Mark R. Wicclair (1991), `Patient Decision-Making Capacity and Risk', Bioethics 5, 1991: 91±104. 2 Ian Wilks (1997), `The http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Bioethics Wiley

The Continuing Debate over Risk‐related Standards of Competence

Bioethics, Volume 13 (2) – Apr 1, 1999

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/the-continuing-debate-over-risk-related-standards-of-competence-NZqS281Tb0
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0269-9702
eISSN
1467-8519
DOI
10.1111/1467-8519.00138
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In the 1991 article which initiated the debate over risk-related standards of competence in this Journal, I identified several problems associated with them.1 In a subsequent discussion article, Ian Wilks defended risk-related standards.2 He did not address some of my objections, including the following: (1) To attribute decision-making capacity to patients who satisfy only a weak standard may be inconsistent with the concept of decisionmaking capacity as the possession of various cognitive or mental abilities (e.g., a set of more or less coherent and stable values and goals; and a capacity to understand, communicate, reason, and deliberate).3 (2) When patients satisfy only a weak standard, their consent/assent may not warrant concluding that: (a) They have authorized providing or forgoing treatment. (b) They are (partially) responsible for the decision and its consequences. (c) Their decisions are generally reliable indicators of their best interests.4 (3) Proponents of a risk-related standard conflate two distinct questions: (a) Does a patient have decision-making capacity with respect to a particular choice or set of choices? (b) Is it justified to override the patient's decision for paternalistic Mark R. Wicclair (1991), `Patient Decision-Making Capacity and Risk', Bioethics 5, 1991: 91±104. 2 Ian Wilks (1997), `The

Journal

BioethicsWiley

Published: Apr 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off