Godderis J
Gerontologie. 1981 May;12(2):81-90.
Incompetency in terms of one legal function does not necessarily mean incompetency in terms of all. Once a person has been found 'mentally ill' or 'insane', he is not to be considered as incompetent for all legal purposes, including his competency to make a will. Testamentary capacity may be consistent with mental disorder and should be determined on narrow standards applicable to this specific legal function. As yet the standards that have been formulated by most courts emphasize almost exclusively cognitive capacity. As a psychiatrist, the author strongly feels that testamentary capacity must meet 'affective' criteria as well. Under all circumstances one should bear in mind both cognitive and affective criteria, when assessing one's competency at the moment he prepares his will, or when testifying in court concerning the testamentary capacity of a testator, now deceased, at the time he made the provision.
在一项法律职能方面无行为能力并不必然意味着在所有方面都无行为能力。一旦一个人被认定为“精神疾病患者”或“精神错乱者”,他并非在所有法律目的上都被视为无行为能力,包括其立遗嘱的行为能力。遗嘱能力可能与精神障碍并存,并且应该依据适用于这一特定法律职能的狭义标准来判定。到目前为止,大多数法院制定的标准几乎完全强调认知能力。作为一名精神病医生,作者强烈认为遗嘱能力也必须符合“情感”标准。在任何情况下,当评估一个人立遗嘱时的行为能力,或者在法庭上就现已去世的遗嘱人立遗嘱时的遗嘱能力作证时,都应该同时牢记认知和情感标准。