Supported Decision Making With People at the Margins of Autonomy

REFERENCES

• Aas, S., and D. Wasserman. 2016. Brain-computer interfaces and disability: Extending embodiment, reducing stigma? Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (1):37–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Bar Association 2017. Supported decision making resolution 113 to the ABA house of delegates. Prepared by the Commission on Disability Rights, Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law, Commission on Law and Aging, 113. Last cccessed February 8, 2020. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_aging/2017_SDM_%20Resolution_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• American Bar Association. 2016. PRACTICAL Tool for Lawyers: Steps in Supporting Decision Making. Prepared by the Commission on Law and Aging, Commission on Disability Rights, Section on Civil Rights and Social Justice, and Section on Real Property, Trust and Estate Law. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/resources/guardianship_law_practice/practical_tool/
   Google Scholar
• American Bar Association. 2018. State adult guardianship legislative summary: Directions of reform. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_aging/2018-adult-guardianship-legislative-summary.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Appelbaum, P. S. 2007. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 357 (18):1834–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp074045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arstein-Kerslake, A., J. Watson, M. Browning, J. Martinis, and P. Blanck. 2017. Future direction in supported decision making. Disability Studies Quarterly 37 (1):1–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i1.5070.
   Google Scholar
• Bach, M., and L. Kerzner. 2010. A new paradigm for protecting autonomy and the right to legal capacity. Prepared by The Law Commission of Ontario. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.lco-cdo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/disabilities-commissioned-paper-bach-kerzner.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2019. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bigby, C., J. Douglas, T. Carney, S. N. Then, I. Wiesel, and E. Smith. 2017. Delivering decision making support to people with cognitive disability—What has been learned from pilot programs in Australia from 2010 to 2015. Australian Journal of Social Issues 52 (3):222–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Columbia Representation Agreement Act. 1996. RSBC Chapter 405. Last accessed February 8, 2020. http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96405_01
   Google Scholar
• Brown, E. L., N. Ruggiano, J. Li, P. J. Clarke, E. S. Kay, and V. Hristidis. 2019. Smartphone-based health technologies for dementia care: Opportunities, challenges, and current practices. Journal of Applied Gerontology : The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society 38 (1):73–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817723088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browning, M., C. Bigby, and J. Douglas. 2014. Supported decision making: Understanding how its conceptual link to legal capacity is influencing the development of practice. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 1 (1):34–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2014.902726.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. E., and D. W. Brock. 1990. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christman, J. 2004. Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social constitution of selves. Philosophical Studies 117 (1/2):143–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000014532.56866.5c.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58 (1):7–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, C. A., C. P. Cusick, L. A. Hawley, J. K. Newman, C. E. Morey, C. L. Harrison-Felix, and G. G. Whiteneck. 2007. Treatment efficacy of social communication skills training after traumatic brain injury: A randomized treatment and deferred treatment controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 88 (12):1561–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, G., B. Kelly, G. Macdonald, M. Rizzo, L. Lombard, O. Abogunrin, V. Clift-Matthews, and A. Martin. 2015. Supported decision making: A review of the international literature. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 38 :61–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.01.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devi, N. 2013. Supported decision-making and personal autonomy for persons with intellectual disabilities: Article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities . The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics : A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41 (4):792–806. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinerstein, R. D. 2012. Implementing legal capacity under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The difficult road from guardianship to supported decision-making. Human Rights Brief 19 (2):8–12.
   Google Scholar
• Faden, R. R., and T. L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fins, J. J., and B. Pohl. 2016. Guardianship and the injured brain: Representation and the rights of patients and families. In Finding consciousness: The neuroscience, ethics, and law of severe brain damage, ed. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, 246–259. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, L. P., and A. Silvers. 2007. Liberalism and individually scripted ideas of the good: Meeting the challenge of dependent agency. Social Theory and Practice 33 (2):311–34. doi:https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200733229.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, L. P. 2011. Understanding autonomy in light of intellectual disability. In Disability and disadvantage, ed. Kimberley Brownlee and Adam Cureton, 200–15. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ganzini, L., L. Volicer, W. A. Nelson, E. Fox, and A. R. Derse. 2005. Ten myths about decision-making capacity. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 6 (3 Suppl):S100–S104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2005.03.021.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glen, K. B. 2015. Supported decision-making and the human right of legal capacity. Inclusion 3 (1):2–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.1.2.
   Google Scholar
• Glen, K. B. 2012. Changing paradigms: Mental capacity, legal capacity guardianship, and beyond. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 44 :93–169.
   Google Scholar
• Goering, S. 2002. Beyond the medical model? Disability, formal justice, and the exception for the “profoundly impaired”. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12 (4):373–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2002.0025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gooding, P. 2013. Supported decision-making: A rights-based disability concept and its implications for mental health law. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 20 (3):431–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2012.711683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grisso, T., and P. S. Appelbaum. 1998. Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, R., and E. Taşcıoğlu. 2018. Supported decision-making from theory to practice: Implementing the right to enjoy legal capacity. Societies 8 (2):25–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8020025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatch, M. J., S. A. Crane, and J. G. Martinis. 2015. Unjustified isolation is discrimination: The Olmstead case against overbroad and undue organizational and public guardianship. Inclusion 3 (2):65–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.2.65.
   Google Scholar
• Ireland Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act. 2015. No. 64. Last accessed February 8, 2020. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/64/enacted/en/print#sec1.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, J. L., K. A. Shogren, E. M. Grandfield, K. L. Vierling, K. L. Gallus, and L. A. Shaw. 2018. Examining predictors of self-determination in adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 30 (5):601–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-018-9607-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagan, A. 1998. Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and resources for training conversation partners. Aphasiology 12 (9):816–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039808249575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. Y., and P. S. Appelbaum. 2006. The capacity to appoint a proxy and the possibility of concurrent proxy directives. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 24 (4):469–78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittay, E. F. 2011. The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris 24 (1):49–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00473.x.
   Google Scholar
• Kohn, N. A., J. A. Blumenthal, and A. T. Campbell. 2012. Supported decision-making: A viable alternative to guardianship. Penn State Law Review 117:1111–57.
   Google Scholar
• Kukla, R. 2005. Conscientious autonomy: Displacing decisions in health care. The Hastings Center Report 35 (2):34–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/hcr.2005.0025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, N. 2007. Rethinking neuroethics in the light of the extended mind thesis. The American Journal of Bioethics 7 (9):3–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160701518466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lysaught, M. T. 2004. Respect: Or, how respect for persons became respect for autonomy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (6):665–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310490883028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C. 2008. Relational autonomy, normative authority and perfectionism. Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (4):512–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.00440.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar, eds. 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marson, D. C., K. K. Ingram, H. A. Cody, and L. E. Harrell. 1995. Assessing the competency of patients with Alzheimer’s disease under different legal standards. A prototype instrument. Archives of Neurology 52 (10):949–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1995.00540340029010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon, S., V. Entwistle, A. V. Campbell, and J. J. van Delden. 2020. How should the ‘privilege’ in therapeutic privilege be conceived when considering the decision-making process for patients with borderline capacity? Journal of Medical Ethics. Published Online First. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105792.
   Google Scholar
• National Commission. 1978. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. In Prepared by The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
   Google Scholar
• National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 2017. Uniform guardian, conservatorship and other protective Arrangements Act. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.uniformlaws.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=de9bae9e-0b4e-0781-12b5-f5305569bf19&forceDialog=0
   Google Scholar
• National Council on Disability. 2019. Turning rights into reality: How guardianship and alternatives impact the autonomy of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Last accessed May 12, 2020. https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Turning-Rights-into-Reality_508_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Okonkwo, O.,. H. R. Griffith, K. Belue, S. Lanza, E. Y. Zamrini, L. E. Harrell, J. C. Brockington, D. Clark, R. Raman, and D. C. Marson. 2007. Medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 69 (15):1528–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000277639.90611.d9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osamor, P. E., and C. Grady. 2018. Autonomy and couples: Joint decision-making in healthcare. BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0241-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Petersen, R. C., R. O. Roberts, D. S. Knopman, Y. E. Geda, R. H. Cha, V. S. Pankratz, B. F. Boeve, E. G. Tangalos, R. J. Ivnik, and W. A. Rocca. 2010. Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment is higher in men: The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Neurology 75 (10):889–97. doi:https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f11d85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross et al. v. Hatch, Circuit Court for the City of Newport News (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Salzman, L. 2010. Rethinking guardianship (again): Substituted decision making as a violation of the integration mandated of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. University of Colorado Law Review 81:157–245.
   Google Scholar
• Shakespeare, T. 2017. The social model of disability. In The disabilities studies reader, ed. J. Davis Lennard, 195–203. 5th ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Shalowitz, D. I., E. Garret-Mayer, and D. Wendler. 2006. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (5):493–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.5.493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, R. B. 1980. Guardianship: Time for a reassessment. Fordham Law Review 49 :350–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shogren, K. A., M. L. Wehmeyer, H. Lassmann, and A. J. Forber-Pratt. 2017c. Supported decision making: A synthesis of the literature across intellectual disability, mental health, and aging. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 52 (2):144–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shogren, K. A., M. L. Wehmeyer, H. Seo, J. R. Thompson, R. L. Schalock, C. Hughes, T. D. Little, and S. B. Palmer. 2017b. Examining the reliability and validity of the supports intensity scale–children’s version in children with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 32 (4):293–304. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615625060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shogren, K. A., M. L. Wehmeyer, H. Uyanik, and M. Heidrich. 2017a. Development of the supported decision making inventory system. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 55 (6):432–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-55.6.432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvers, A. 2000. The unprotected: Constructing disability in the context of antidiscrimination law. In Americans with disabilities, ed. Leslie Pickering Francis and Anita Silvers, 126–45. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Silvers, A. Formal Justice. 1998. In Disability, difference, and discrimination, ed. Anita Silvers, David Wasserman, and Mary Mahowald, 13–145. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Silvers, A., and L. P. Francis. 2009. Thinking about the good: Reconfiguring liberal metaphysics (or not) for people with cognitive disabilities. Metaphilosophy 40 (3–4):475–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01602.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. R., M. Broughton, R. Baker, N. A. Pachana, A. J. Angwin, M. S. Humphreys, L. Mitchell, G. J. Byrne, D. A. Copland, C. Gallois, et al. 2011. Memory and communication support in dementia: Research-based strategies for caregivers. International Psychogeriatrics 23 (2):256–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610210001845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spreng, R. N., J. Karlawish, and D. C. Marson. 2016. Cognitive, social, and neural determinants of diminished decision-making and financial exploitation risk in aging and dementia: A review and new model. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 28 (4–5):320–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2016.1237918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S., S. J. Wallace, and S. E. Wallace. 2019. High-technology augmentative and alternative communication in poststroke aphasia: A review of the factors that contribute to successful augmentative and alternative communication use. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 4 (3):464–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERS-SIG2-2018-0016.
   Google Scholar
• Texas Estates Code 1357.001. 2015. Supported decision-making agreement act. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ES/htm/ES.1357.htm
   Google Scholar
• Texas Guardianship Abuse, Fraud, and Exploitation Deterrence Program. 2019. Report on guardianship reform. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1443314/texas-guardianship-reform_jan-2019.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Theodorou, E. J. 2018. Supported decision-making in the lone-star state. New York University Law Review 93:973–1013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2006. United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2014. United Nations General Comment No.1 on CRPD, Article 12: Equal recognition before the law. Prepared by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Last accessed February 8, 2020. https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/031/20/PDF/G1403120.pdf?OpenElement
   Google Scholar
• Verghese, J., R. B. Lipton, M. J. Katz, C. B. Hall, C. A. Derby, G. Kuslansky, A. F. Ambrose, M. Sliwinski, and H. Buschke. 2003. Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. New England Journal of Medicine 348 (25):2508–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, H. M., C. Calkins, M. L. Wehmeyer, L. Walker, A. Bacon, S. B. Palmer, G. S. Jesien, M. A. Nygren, T. Heller, G. S. Gotto, et al. 2011. A social-ecological approach to promote self-determination. Exceptionality 19 (1):6–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2011.537220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendell, S. 1989. Toward a feminist theory of disability. Hypatia 4 (2):104–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00576.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Westlund, A. C. 2009. Rethinking relational autonomy. Hypatia 24 (4):26–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01056.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, J. L. 2010. Guardianship for your own good: Improving the well-being of respondents and wards in the USA. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (5–6):350–68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, M. S. 2019. Dementia, healthcare decision making, and disability law. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics : A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47 (4_suppl):25–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519898040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, M. S. 2020. Dementia, autonomy, and supported healthcare decision making. Maryland Law Review 79 (2):257–324.
   Google Scholar