Starson v. Swayze: the Supreme Court speaks out (not all that clearly) on the question of "capacity".
نویسنده
چکیده
OBJECTIVES The decision in Starson v. Swayze interpreting the "understanding" requirement for capacity in the Ontario Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) provoked concern and criticism from psychiatric quarters. This article seeks to explain the decision and its implications for Ontario and other provinces. METHOD The majority and minority opinions in the Starson case, and 4 cases decided in Ontario since Starson, were closely analyzed. The literature on capacity was examined. The decision's constitutional implications were considered. RESULTS Patients need not be able to understand that their condition constitutes an illness to be found capable of consenting to or refusing treatment. The focus should be on their ability to understand that they are affected by the condition's manifestations. A patient's "best interests" are not relevant to the capacity determination. The majority opinion departed from the traditional role accorded to a patient's denial of illness in determining capacity. Contrary to the views of some commentators, the Court's discussion of the actual benefits and risks of the treatments prescribed for Starson had no bearing on the capacity issue. Three of the post-Starson cases examined complied with the Court's holding; one did not. The majority's distinction regarding what patients must be able to understand about their condition is likely not a "principle of fundamental justice" under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). The right of the capable patient to refuse treatment and the irrelevance of the patient's best interests likely do constitute such principles. CONCLUSIONS Patients in Ontario cannot be found incapable because they deny they are ill. Ability to recognize the manifestations of their condition suffices. This distinction is probably only binding in Ontario. The capable patient's right to refuse treatment and the irrelevance of the patient's best interests likely are binding throughout Canada.
منابع مشابه
Cognitive Mapping of the Human Capital of the Auditors of Supreme Audit Court
The present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the components of human capital and discovering the relationships between them for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court. Thus, after identifying the dimensions of human capital at the individual level, the components of human capital for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court were extracted using content analysis of semi-structured i...
متن کاملAbortion on demand in a post-Wade context: must the state pay the bills?
The legal issues involved with the application of the United States Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973) are reveiwed, particularly the question of whether an indigent pregnant woman now has the right to abortion on demand at public expense. The 2 decisions, based on the Fourteenth Amendment, established that a woman, in consultation with her physician, must be free...
متن کاملMandamus as a Remedy for the Denial of Jury Trial
The Supreme Court has consistently stated that federal appellate courts may issue the writ of mandamus as an interlocutory remedy only under "extraordinary" circumstances," to correct a lower court order that is "not mere error but usurpation of power."2 The Court has explained that mandamus cannot serve as a substitute for normal appeal and should be available "only where appeal is a clearly i...
متن کاملCompetent Authorities to Handle Complaints about Incorrect Tax Assessment and Collection with an Ethical Approach in Iran
Background: Retrial is an additional combination of the words "retrial" and "trial". Trial is a means of justice and trial, like others, is in the introduction of error and error if there is a verdict that is accompanied by error as a result of the trial. Which must be reconsidered. In the relations between taxpayers and the tax system, a dispute is possible, which can be due to factors such as...
متن کاملبررسی سیر تحول در ثبت اختراعات مرتبط با دی.اِن.اِی با تأکید بر رأی دیوان عالی آمریکا در قضیه انجمن پاتولوژی مولکولی علیه شرکت میریاد
Patentability of inventions related to biotechnology and genetics has been one of the most challenging issues in patent law. One of these challenges is whether patenting products in which natural components are used is correct? Can we put human genes in the ownership of certain individuals? In addition, exercising exclusive rights arising from patents will limit the access of people, in particu...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie
دوره 52 6 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2007