Berens Noah Clark, Kim Scott Y H
Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Front Psychol. 2022 Jun 29;13:897144. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.897144. eCollection 2022.
The concept of decision-making capacity (DMC) or competence remains controversial, despite widespread use. Risk-sensitive DMC assessment (RS-DMC)-the idea that the higher the risk involved in a decision, the greater the decisional abilities required for DMC-has been particularly controversial. We conducted a systematic, descriptive review of the arguments for and against RS-DMC to clarify the debate.
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), PsycInfo (American Psychological Association) and Philpapers, updating our search to February 15th, 2022. We targeted peer-reviewed publications in English that argue for or against RS-DMC. Two reviewers independently screened the publications and extracted data from each eligible manuscript.
Of 41 eligible publications, 22 supported a risk-sensitive threshold in DMC assessment. Most arguments for RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal and practical merits. The arguments against RS-DMC primarily express concerns about paternalism and the seeming asymmetry between consent and refusal; critics of RS-DMC support epistemic, rather than substantive (i.e., variable threshold), risk-sensitivity; counterarguments responding to criticisms of RS-DMC address charges of paternalism and exhibit a notable variety of responses to the issue of asymmetry. Authors used a variety of frameworks regarding the definition of DMC, its elements, and its relation to decisional authority, and these frameworks were significantly associated with positions on RS-DMC. A limitation of our review is that the coding relies on judgment and interpretation.
The review suggests that some of the debate about RS-DMC stems from differences in underlying frameworks. Most defenses of RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal, while most criticisms reflect concerns about paternalism or the asymmetry between consent and refusal. Defenses of RS-DMC respond to the asymmetry problem in a variety of ways. Further research is needed on the implications of underlying frameworks, the asymmetry problem, and the distinction between epistemic and substantive models of RS-DMC.
尽管决策能力(DMC)或行为能力的概念被广泛使用,但其仍然存在争议。风险敏感型DMC评估(RS-DMC)——即决策所涉及的风险越高,DMC所需的决策能力就越强这一观点——尤其具有争议性。我们对支持和反对RS-DMC的论点进行了系统的描述性综述,以澄清这场辩论。
我们检索了PubMed/MEDLINE(美国国立医学图书馆)、PsycInfo(美国心理学会)和Philpapers,并将检索更新至2022年2月15日。我们的目标是检索以英文发表的、支持或反对RS-DMC的同行评审出版物。两名评审员独立筛选出版物,并从每篇符合条件的手稿中提取数据。
在41篇符合条件的出版物中,22篇支持DMC评估中的风险敏感阈值。支持RS-DMC的大多数论点都基于其直观吸引力和实际优点。反对RS-DMC的论点主要表达了对家长式作风以及同意和拒绝之间明显不对称性的担忧;RS-DMC的批评者支持认知风险敏感性,而非实质性(即可变阈值)风险敏感性;回应RS-DMC批评的反驳论点回应了家长式作风的指控,并对不对称性问题表现出了显著多样的回应。作者们在DMC的定义、其要素及其与决策权威的关系方面使用了多种框架,这些框架与关于RS-DMC的立场显著相关。我们综述的一个局限性在于编码依赖于判断和解释。
该综述表明,关于RS-DMC的一些辩论源于潜在框架的差异。对RS-DMC的大多数辩护都基于其直观吸引力,而大多数批评则反映了对家长式作风或同意与拒绝之间不对称性的担忧。对RS-DMC的辩护以多种方式回应了不对称性问题。需要对潜在框架的影响、不对称性问题以及RS-DMC的认知模型和实质模型之间的区别进行进一步研究。