MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W254676598

The Mental Health Act and the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act: Working Together to Protect the Rights of Albertans

2010· article· en· W254676598 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brenda Lee Doyle, Sandra Harrison

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegal guardianLegislationAutonomyPresumptionLawMental Health ActMental capacityProclamationBest interestsPolitical scienceMental healthMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act (AGTA) was proclaimed in force October 30, 2009, and replaced the 30-year-old Dependent Adults Act. (1) Proclamation of the recent amendments to the Mental Act (MHA) occurred in two phases--September 30, 2009, and January 1, 2010. (2) Both pieces of legislation are concerned with the rights and welfare of vulnerable adults, but the Acts vary in scope and focus. Changes to the MHA were considered as the AGTA was developed, so the two pieces of legislation are compatible. This article briefly outlines the general provisions regarding decision-making and some related issues under the two Acts. The AGTA is relevant to all adult Albertans. It speaks to an individual's ability to make personal and/or financial decisions according to the decisional demands of their life circumstances. The Act is grounded in guiding principles focused on a presumption of capacity, autonomy and best interests decision making, which includes consideration of the wishes, values and beliefs the adult held while capable. (3) It addresses situations where capacity may be an issue for a number of reasons (e.g., developmental delay, brain injury, dementia). The AGTA and accompanying regulations standardize the capacity assessment process and establish clear guidelines for capacity assessors under the Act. (4) Trustees act as substitute decision makers for financial matters. Supporters or substitute decision makers may provide assistance or decision making for a range of personal matters. Personal matters are divided into eight groupings (e.g., health, social activities, employment). (5) The Act reflects current knowledge on mental capacity and the different levels of ability people have for making decisions. In keeping with the guiding principle of a least intrusive approach to decision making assistance or authority, a substitute decision maker will only be granted authority in those areas where it is absolutely necessary (e.g., a guardian may be appointed to make health decisions, but the adult retains autonomy for all other decision making). The AGTA establishes innovative legal mechanisms so Albertans can get the level of decision making assistance appropriate to their needs. The decision making options under the AGTA are outlined below. Supported Decision Making Authorizations (SDMAs) allow capable adults to authorize someone they trust to help them with decisions. (6) The authorization allows the to access relevant information that might otherwise be protected under privacy laws. The supporter is also able to help the adult think through and communicate decisions. SDMAs will be useful for capable individuals with communication barriers (e.g. people whose first language is not English, people with mild disabilities). Co-decision Making Orders (CDMOs) allow adults assessed as significantly impaired to consent to a Court order appointing a trusted person(s) as their co-decision maker. (7) The order requires the adult to make all or certain personal decisions in partnership with their co-decision maker. This option may be appropriate when the adult has a strong, positive relationship with his/her co-decision maker (e.g., wife acting as a co-decision maker for her brain injured husband). The Public Guardian cannot be a co-decision maker. CDMOs are issued by the Court of Queen's Bench. Guardianship Orders appoint a guardian to make all or certain personal decisions on behalf of incapable adults, including decisions pertaining to health care. (8) Health care is broadly defined, and includes: any examination, diagnosis, procedure or treatment undertaken to prevent or manage any disease, illness, ailment or health condition; any procedure undertaken for the purpose of an examination or a diagnosis; any medical, surgical, obstetrical or dental treatment; anything done that is ancillary to any examination, diagnosis, procedure or treatment; any procedure undertaken for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, except sterilization that is not medically necessary to protect health; palliative care; and a treatment plan. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,124
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,250

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,007
Communication savante0,0060,002
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,391
Écart entre enseignants0,355 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsTravaux en français237 207