Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

On risk and decisional capacity.

D Checkland1

  • 1Ryerson Polytechnic University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. dcheckla@acs.ryerson.ca

The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|March 23, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

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

Theoretical medicine and bioethics·1999
Same author

Mental competence and the question of beneficent intervention.

Theoretical medicine·1996
Same author

Reflections on segregating and assessing areas of competence.

Theoretical medicine·1995
Same author

Presumptions respecting mental competence.

Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie·1994
Same author

Bridging the gap: public policy and clinical criteria for competency.

Health law in Canada·1992
Same journal

Neurobiological Determinism versus Human Freedom: Competing Explanatory Models and the Hope for Moral Enhancement.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Zygotes are Persisting Organisms.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Ethical Examination of Genetic Enhancement from the Perspective of Confucian Human Dignity.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Reproducing Anachronism: Ageing, Fertility and Inequality in Reproductive Governance.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Genetic Moral Enhancement-A View Based on Mencius' Theory of Human Nature.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Egalitarian Justice and the Prevalence Principle in Human Genome Editing.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
See all related articles

This study critiques varying decisional capacity standards based on risk, arguing against Ian Wilks's proposal. It clarifies that mental competence standards should not fluctuate with the level of risk associated with choices.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Legal Philosophy
  • Medical Law

Background:

  • Paternalism in liberal democracies is constrained by decision-making capacity standards.
  • Ian Wilks (1997) proposed risk-based standards for decisional capacity.
  • Previous criticisms of risk-based standards exist (e.g., Culver & Gert, 1990).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To respond to and critique Ian Wilks's defense of risk-based standards for decisional capacity.
  • To analyze the logical and conceptual underpinnings of mental competence.
  • To propose an alternative framework for risk assessment in decisional capacity.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.
  • Critique of Ian Wilks's (1997) arguments and use of examples/analogies.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachMental Health TherapiesProfessional Patient Relationship

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of the relationship between mental competence, risk, and decisional authority.

    • Main Results:

    • Wilks's defense of risk-based standards for decisional capacity is found to be logically flawed.
    • Wilks misconstrues the nature of mental competence, conflating it with a broader "competence" genus.
    • The conceptual and pragmatic links between capacity and decisional authority are inadequately addressed by Wilks.

    Conclusions:

    • Standards for decisional capacity should not vary based on the risk of a chosen action.
    • An alternative approach to integrating risk into decisional capacity assessments within legal frameworks is suggested.
    • Clarifying the concept of mental competence is crucial for ethical and legal decision-making.