Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments.
<h4>Background/objectives</h4>Many jurisdictions use a functional model of capacity with similar legal criteria, but there is a lack of agreed understanding as to how to apply these criteria in practice. We aimed to develop a typology of capacity rationales to describe court practice in...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246521&type=printable |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849469128628240384 |
|---|---|
| author | Nuala B Kane Alex Ruck Keene Gareth S Owen Scott Y H Kim |
| author_facet | Nuala B Kane Alex Ruck Keene Gareth S Owen Scott Y H Kim |
| author_sort | Nuala B Kane |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background/objectives</h4>Many jurisdictions use a functional model of capacity with similar legal criteria, but there is a lack of agreed understanding as to how to apply these criteria in practice. We aimed to develop a typology of capacity rationales to describe court practice in making capacity determinations and to guide professionals approaching capacity assessments.<h4>Methods</h4>We analysed all published cases from courts in England and Wales [Court of Protection (CoP) judgments, or Court of Appeal cases from the CoP] containing rationales for incapacity or intact capacity(n = 131). Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a typology of capacity rationales or abilities. Relationships between the typology and legal criteria for capacity [Mental Capacity Act (MCA)] and diagnoses were analysed.<h4>Results</h4>The typology had nine categories (reliability: kappa = 0.63): 1) to grasp information or concepts, 2) to imagine/ abstract, 3) to remember, 4) to appreciate, 5) to value/ care, 6) to think through the decision non-impulsively, 7) to reason, 8) to give coherent reasons, and 9) to express a stable preference. Rationales most frequently linked to MCA criterion 'understand' were ability to grasp information or concepts (43%) or to appreciate (42%), and to MCA criterion 'use or weigh' were abilities to appreciate (45%) or to reason (32%). Appreciation was the most frequently cited rationale across all diagnoses. Judges often used rationales without linking them specifically to any MCA criteria (42%).<h4>Conclusions</h4>A new typology of rationales could bridge the gap between legal criteria for decision-making capacity and phenomena encountered in practice, increase reliability and transparency of assessments, and provide targets for decision-making support. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7067def34b624fc3bcc92f7ac9e4a59a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-7067def34b624fc3bcc92f7ac9e4a59a2025-08-20T03:25:37ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032021-01-01162e024652110.1371/journal.pone.0246521Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments.Nuala B KaneAlex Ruck KeeneGareth S OwenScott Y H Kim<h4>Background/objectives</h4>Many jurisdictions use a functional model of capacity with similar legal criteria, but there is a lack of agreed understanding as to how to apply these criteria in practice. We aimed to develop a typology of capacity rationales to describe court practice in making capacity determinations and to guide professionals approaching capacity assessments.<h4>Methods</h4>We analysed all published cases from courts in England and Wales [Court of Protection (CoP) judgments, or Court of Appeal cases from the CoP] containing rationales for incapacity or intact capacity(n = 131). Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a typology of capacity rationales or abilities. Relationships between the typology and legal criteria for capacity [Mental Capacity Act (MCA)] and diagnoses were analysed.<h4>Results</h4>The typology had nine categories (reliability: kappa = 0.63): 1) to grasp information or concepts, 2) to imagine/ abstract, 3) to remember, 4) to appreciate, 5) to value/ care, 6) to think through the decision non-impulsively, 7) to reason, 8) to give coherent reasons, and 9) to express a stable preference. Rationales most frequently linked to MCA criterion 'understand' were ability to grasp information or concepts (43%) or to appreciate (42%), and to MCA criterion 'use or weigh' were abilities to appreciate (45%) or to reason (32%). Appreciation was the most frequently cited rationale across all diagnoses. Judges often used rationales without linking them specifically to any MCA criteria (42%).<h4>Conclusions</h4>A new typology of rationales could bridge the gap between legal criteria for decision-making capacity and phenomena encountered in practice, increase reliability and transparency of assessments, and provide targets for decision-making support.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246521&type=printable |
| spellingShingle | Nuala B Kane Alex Ruck Keene Gareth S Owen Scott Y H Kim Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments. PLoS ONE |
| title | Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments. |
| title_full | Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments. |
| title_fullStr | Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments. |
| title_short | Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments. |
| title_sort | applying decision making capacity criteria in practice a content analysis of court judgments |
| url | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246521&type=printable |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nualabkane applyingdecisionmakingcapacitycriteriainpracticeacontentanalysisofcourtjudgments AT alexruckkeene applyingdecisionmakingcapacitycriteriainpracticeacontentanalysisofcourtjudgments AT garethsowen applyingdecisionmakingcapacitycriteriainpracticeacontentanalysisofcourtjudgments AT scottyhkim applyingdecisionmakingcapacitycriteriainpracticeacontentanalysisofcourtjudgments |