Physician Aid-in-Dying for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness: Clarifying Decision-Making Capacity and Psychiatric Futility

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 61-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rocksheng Zhong ◽  
Yingcheng Xu ◽  
Maria A. Oquendo ◽  
Dominic A. Sisti
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Aid In Dying

scholarly journals 458 - End-of-life decision-making capacity in an elderly patient with schizophrenia and terminal cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 179-179
Author(s):  
C Kotzé ◽  
JL Roos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
End Of Life Decision

Medical practitioners are confronted on a daily basis with decisions about patients’ capacity to consent to interventions. To address some of the pertinent issues with these assessments, the end -of-life decision-making capacity in a 72-year old lady with treatment resistant schizophrenia and terminal cancer will be discussed.In the case discussed there were differences in opinion about the patients decision-making capacity. In light of this, the role of the treating clinician and importance of health-related values in capacity assessment are highlighted. It is recommended that the focus of these assessments can rather be on practical outcomes, especially when capacity issues arise. This implies that the decision-making capacity of the patient is only practically important when the treatment team is willing to proceed against the patient’s wishes. This shifts the focus from a potentially difficult assessment to the simpler question of whether the patient’s capacity will change the treatment approach.Compared to the general population, people with serious mental illness have higher rates of physical illness and die at a younger age, but they do not commonly access palliative care services and are rarely engaged in end-of-life care discussions. Older people with serious mental illness can engage in advance care planning. Conversations about end -of-life care can occur without fear that a person’s psychiatric symptoms or related vulnerabilities will undermine the process. Clinicians are also advised to attend to any possible underlying issues, instead of focusing strictly on capacity. Routine documentation of end-of-life care preferences can support future decision making for family and clinicians at a time when patients are unable to express their decisions.More research about palliative care and advance care planning for people with serious mental illness is needed. This is even more urgent in light of the COVID-2019 pandemic, as there are potential needs for rationing of health care in the context of scarce resources. Health services should consider recommendations that advanced care planning should be routinely implemented. These recommendations should not only focus on the general population and should include patients with serious mental illness.

scholarly journals End-of-Life Decision-Making Capacity in Older People With Serious Mental Illness

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Kotzé ◽  
Johannes Lodewikus Roos ◽  
René Ehlers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Older People ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

Background: The study's main aim was to assess the end-of-life decision-making capacity and health-related values of older people with serious mental illness.Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study, was done at Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital, Gauteng Province, South Africa that included 100 adults older than 60 years of age and diagnosed with serious mental illness. The Mini-Cog and a semi-structured clinical assessment of end-of-life decision-making capacity was done before a standardized interview, Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment, was administered. This standardized instrument uses a hypothetical vignette to assess decision-making capacity and explores healthcare-related values.Results: The Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment scores correlated (p < 0.001) with the outcomes of the semi-structured decision-making capacity evaluation. Significant correlations with impaired decision-making capacity included: lower scores on the Mini-Cog (p < 0.001); a duration of serious mental illness of 30–39 years (p = 0025); having a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (p = 0.0007); and being admitted involuntarily (p < 0.0001). A main finding was that 65% of participants had decision-making capacity for end-of-life decisions, were able to express their values and engage in advance care discussions.Discussion and Conclusion: Healthcare providers have a duty to initiate advance care discussions, optimize decision-making capacity, and protect autonomous decision-making. Many older patients with serious mental illness can engage in end-of-life discussions and can make autonomous decisions about preferred end-of-life care. Chronological age or diagnostic categories should never be used as reasons for discrimination, and older people with serious mental illness should receive end-of-life care in keeping with their preferences and values.

scholarly journals 214 - End-of-life decision-making capacity in older people with serious mental illness

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 15-16
Author(s):  
Carla Kotzé ◽  
Louw Roos ◽  
René Ehlers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Older People ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

ABSTRACTObjectives:The study’s main aim was to assess the end-of-life decision-making capacity and health-related values of older people with serious mental illness.Design, Setting, and Participants:This was a cross-sectional, observational study, done at Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital, Gauteng Province, South Africa that included 100 adults older than 60 years of age and diagnosed with serious mental illness.Measurements:Socio-demographic, diagnostic, and treatment data were collected before administration of the Mini- Cog and a semi-structured clinical assessment of end-of-life decision-making capacity. Finally, the standardized interview, Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment, was administered. This standardised instrument uses a hypothetical vignette to assess decision-making capacity and explores healthcare-related values.Results:According to the semi-structured decision-making capacity assessment, 65% of participants had decision-making capacity for end-of-life decisions. The Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment scores were significant (p<0.001) when compared to decision-making capacity. Significant correlations with impaired decision-making capacity included: lower scores on the Mini-Cog (p<0.001); a duration of serious mental illness of 30-39 years (p=0025); having a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (p=0.0007); and being admitted involuntarily (p<0.0001).Conclusions:Two thirds of older people with serious mental illness had decision-making capacity and were able to engage in end-of-life care discussions. Healthcare providers have a duty to initiate advance care discussions, optimize decision-making capacity, and protect autonomous decision-making. Chronological age or diagnostic categories should never be used as reasons for discrimination, and older people with serious mental illness should receive end-of-life care in keeping with their preferences and values.

The capacity to designate a surrogate is distinct from decisional capacity: normative and empirical considerations

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107078
Author(s):  
Mark Navin ◽  
Jason Adam Wasserman ◽  
Devan Stahl ◽  
Tom Tomlinson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Decisional Capacity ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Cognitive Diseases ◽  
Surrogate Selection

The capacity to designate a surrogate (CDS) is not simply another kind of medical decision-making capacity (DMC). A patient with DMC can express a preference, understand information relevant to that choice, appreciate the significance of that information for their clinical condition, and reason about their choice in light of their goals and values. In contrast, a patient can possess the CDS even if they cannot appreciate their condition or reason about the relative risks and benefits of their options. Patients who lack DMC for many or most kinds of medical choices may nonetheless possess the CDS, particularly since the complex means-ends reasoning required by DMC is one of the first capacities to be lost in progressive cognitive diseases (eg, Alzheimer’s disease). That is, patients with significant cognitive decline or mental illness may still understand what a surrogate does, express a preference about a potential surrogate, and be able to provide some kind of justification for that selection. Moreover, there are many legitimate and relevant rationales for surrogate selection that are inconsistent with the reasoning criterion of DMC. Unfortunately, many patients are prevented from designating a surrogate if they are judged to lack DMC. When such patients possess the CDS, this practice is ethically wrong, legally dubious and imposes avoidable burdens on healthcare institutions.

scholarly journals Skills-based intervention to enhance collaborative decision-making: systematic adaptation and open trial protocol for veterans with psychosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily B. H. Treichler ◽  
Borsika A. Rabin ◽  
William D. Spaulding ◽  
Michael L. Thomas ◽  
Michelle P. Salyers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Open Trial ◽  
Collaborative Decision Making ◽  
Collaborative Decision

Abstract Background Collaborative decision-making is an innovative decision-making approach that assigns equal power and responsibility to patients and providers. Most veterans with serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia want a greater role in treatment decisions, but there are no interventions targeted for this population. A skills-based intervention is promising because it is well-aligned with the recovery model, uses similar mechanisms as other evidence-based interventions in this population, and generalizes across decisional contexts while empowering veterans to decide when to initiate collaborative decision-making. Collaborative Decision Skills Training (CDST) was developed in a civilian serious mental illness sample and may fill this gap but needs to undergo a systematic adaptation process to ensure fit for veterans. Methods In aim 1, the IM Adapt systematic process will be used to adapt CDST for veterans with serious mental illness. Veterans and Veteran’s Affairs (VA) staff will join an Adaptation Resource Team and complete qualitative interviews to identify how elements of CDST or service delivery may need to be adapted to optimize its effectiveness or viability for veterans and the VA context. During aim 2, an open trial will be conducted with veterans in a VA Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Recovery Center (PRRC) to assess additional adaptations, feasibility, and initial evidence of effectiveness. Discussion This study will be the first to evaluate a collaborative decision-making intervention among veterans with serious mental illness. It will also contribute to the field’s understanding of perceptions of collaborative decision-making among veterans with serious mental illness and VA clinicians, and result in a service delivery manual that may be used to understand adaptation needs generally in VA PRRCs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04324944

“I Would Like Someone to Hear Me”: Understanding Stakeholder Perceptions in Pursuit of Improving Collaborative Decision-Making among People with Serious Mental Illness

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Treichler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Health Treatment ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Training Manual ◽  
Collaborative Decision Making ◽  
Self Advocacy ◽  
Collaborative Decision

Objective: Collaborative decision-making is valued by people with serious mental illnesses and associated with important outcomes like treatment engagement and satisfaction, but levels of collaboration remain low. We developed a skills training manual to increase consumer ability to initiate and engage in collaborative decision-making in the hopes of facilitating higher levels of collaboration. Our study included two aims: 1) to understand stakeholder perception of collaborative decision-making, and 2) to gain feedback from stakeholders regarding the skills training manual to inform manual revisions.Methods: Eleven consumers with serious mental illness and eleven providers of mental health treatment were recruited. Each participant received a copy of the skills training manual and engaged in one of two mixed participatory dialogues with eleven participants each.Results: Stakeholders reported having a positive perception of collaborative decision-making, but also reported concern about a number of barriers that may inhibit collaborative interactions. Participants believed that increases in collaboration would have to come from consumer self-advocacy despite provider resistance. Stakeholders responded positively overall to the skills training manual, but made a number of suggestions to improve it, leading to 10 revisions.Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Stakeholders’ response emphasizes the desirability and importance of improving CDM, and suggests that a consumer-led intervention is a promising method to do so. Participatory dialogues were not only an effective method to gather data for this study, but also provided a structured and supportive space for consumers to speak to and with providers, including responding directly to stigma among providers.

Preferences of Older and Younger Adults With Serious Mental Illness for Involvement in Decision-Making in Medical and Psychiatric Settings

2008 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 826-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica L. O'Neal ◽  
Jared R. Adams ◽  
Gregory J. McHugo ◽  
Aricca D. Van Citters ◽  
Robert E. Drake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Younger Adults
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document