Damato F, Lippi M, Adelini V, Orsini F, Arcangeli M
Legal Medicine Section, Department of Anatomical, Histological, Medico-Legal and Locomotor Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Public Health, Life Sciences, and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Clin Ter. 2025 Mar-Apr;176(Suppl 1(2)):89-100. doi: 10.7417/CT.2025.5194.
Testamentary capacity (TC) refers to an individual's legal and cognitive ability to create or modify a valid will. The assessment of TC becomes particularly challenging in individuals with neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders. While many jurisdictions have established legal criteria for evaluating TC, diagnostic and evaluative processes vary significantly across countries. This review synthesizes existing research on TC assessments, focusing on the methodologies, bioethical considerations, and legal frameworks utilized in different countries. Special emphasis is placed on the importance of evaluating cognitive abilities, including memory, comprehension, and decision-making, which are crucial for determining TC.
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Articles were identified through searches in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, supplemented by grey literature from Google Scholar. The search strategy employed Boolean keyword combinations related to testamentary capacity (TC), dementia, cognitive assessment, and bioethics. Studies that addressed bioethical considerations and provided specific measures for TC evaluation were included.
The analysis revealed significant variability in both legal and medical approaches to testamentary capacity (TC) assessments across different countries. Some studies emphasize the importance of the "lucid interval" in dementia patients, suggesting that fluctuating pecognitive abilities can influence will-making decisions (Shulman et al., 2015). Other research focuses on the legal implications of deathbed wills, where diminished cognitive functioning near the end of life complicates TC evaluations (Purser & Rosenfeld, 2016). Neurolaw has provided a framework for understanding the impact of historical cases, such as Banks v Goodfellow (1870), which continues to serve as a reference point for modern assessments (Bennett, 2016). The role of neuropsychological tools in evaluating undue influence and cognitive abilities also emerged as a critical factor (Kaufmann, 2016). Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) present both opportunities and challenges for TC evaluations, particularly in the context of dementia (Economou & Kontos, 2023).
The review highlights significant variability in testamentary capacity (TC) assessment methodologies across different countries. While legal precedents such as Banks v Goodfellow (Bennett, 2016) continue to influence current practice, the introduction of AI and other modern tools presents both opportunities and ethical challenges for future assessments (Economou & Kontos, 2023). Incorporating consistent bioethical frameworks and standardized neuropsychological assessments could help ensure more reliable and equitable TC evaluations across various jurisdictions.
遗嘱能力(TC)是指个人创建或修改有效遗嘱的法律和认知能力。对于患有神经退行性疾病和精神疾病的个体而言,评估遗嘱能力极具挑战性。尽管许多司法管辖区已制定了评估遗嘱能力的法律标准,但各国的诊断和评估流程差异显著。本综述综合了关于遗嘱能力评估的现有研究,重点关注不同国家所采用的方法、生物伦理考量及法律框架。特别强调评估认知能力的重要性,包括记忆、理解和决策能力,这些对于确定遗嘱能力至关重要。
按照PRISMA指南进行系统综述。通过在PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库中检索来识别文章,并辅以来自谷歌学术的灰色文献。所采用的检索策略使用了与遗嘱能力(TC)、痴呆症、认知评估和生物伦理相关的布尔关键词组合。纳入了涉及生物伦理考量并提供遗嘱能力评估具体措施的研究。
分析显示,不同国家在遗嘱能力(TC)评估的法律和医学方法上存在显著差异。一些研究强调痴呆症患者“清醒期”的重要性,表明认知前能力的波动会影响遗嘱制定决策(舒尔曼等人,2015年)。其他研究则关注临终遗嘱的法律影响,即生命末期认知功能下降使遗嘱能力评估变得复杂(珀泽尔和罗森菲尔德,2016年)。神经法学为理解历史案例的影响提供了框架,如班克斯诉古德费洛案(1870年),该案至今仍是现代评估的参考点(贝内特,2016年)。神经心理学工具在评估不当影响和认知能力方面的作用也成为一个关键因素(考夫曼,2016年)。人工智能(AI)的最新进展给遗嘱能力评估带来了机遇和挑战,尤其是在痴呆症背景下(埃康诺穆和孔托斯,2023年)。
该综述强调了不同国家在遗嘱能力(TC)评估方法上存在显著差异。虽然诸如班克斯诉古德费洛案(贝内特,2016年)等法律先例继续影响当前实践,但人工智能和其他现代工具的引入给未来评估带来了机遇和伦理挑战(埃康诺穆和孔托斯,2023年)。纳入一致的生物伦理框架和标准化的神经心理学评估有助于确保在各个司法管辖区进行更可靠、公平的遗嘱能力评估。