Article info
PDFExtended essay
Risk-related standards of competence are a nonsense
- Correspondence to Dr Neil John Pickering, Bioethics Centre, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand; neil.pickering{at}otago.ac.nz
Citation
Risk-related standards of competence are a nonsense
Publication history
- Received December 23, 2021
- Accepted February 22, 2022
- First published March 8, 2022.
Online issue publication
January 18, 2024
Article Versions
- Previous version (18 January 2024).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Cake or death? Ending confusions about asymmetries between consent and refusal
- Competence for physician-assisted death of patients with mental disorders: theoretical and practical considerations
- Risk-relativity is still a nonsense
- Ulysses Contracts in psychiatric care: helping patients to protect themselves from spiralling
- Pragmatic argument for an acceptance-refusal asymmetry in competence requirements
- Physicians’ personal values in determining medical decision-making capacity: a survey study
- Fostering relational autonomy in end-of-life care: a procedural approach and three-dimensional decision-making model
- Drawing the line on physician-assisted death
- When psychiatry and bioethics disagree about patient decision making capacity (DMC)
- Capacity and decision making