MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W314865517

Specific Health Care Decisions under Alberta's Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act

2010· article· en· W314865517 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Karin L. Kellogg

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegal guardianProclamationPower of attorneyLawMedicineInformed consentDirectiveHealth carePsychologyFamily medicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Proclaimed in force October 30, 2009, Alberta's Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act repeals the province's thirty-year-old Dependent Adults Act, refitting the law respecting personal as well as property wardship. (1) Guiding principles are entrenched, protective measures are fortified, and decision making options are augmented. (2) Numbered among the latter now is that of the next of kin to consent to the health care of an incapacitated adult. In this article, I depict previous relevant Alberta law, then detail the so-called specific decisions provisions under the new Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act. Their implementation, I conclude, better protects both health care providers and patients--one or two shortcomings notwithstanding. Previous Alberta Law Prior to October 30, 2009, prior to proclamation of the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, such consent was as ineffective as it was unnecessary. Without more--without either a guardianship order or a personal directive--not even the relative could validly consent on behalf of an adult. (3) On the other hand, the need for such was waived. According to subsection 29(1) of Alberta's Dependent Adults Act: Where an adult person (a) is, in the written opinion of 2 physicians, in need of an examination or medical, surgical or obstetrical treatment or is, in the written opinion of 2 dentists, in need of dental treatment, (b) is incapable by reason of mental or physical disability of understanding and consenting to the examination or medical, surgical, obstetrical or dental treatment needed, and (c) has not previously withheld consent to the examination or medical, surgical, obstetrical or dental treatment needed, to the knowledge of either of the physicians or the dentists referred to in clause (a), a physician or dentist may, without the consent of any person, examine the person, prescribe treatment for the person and provide the person with the medical, surgical or obstetrical treatment or with the dental treatment, as the case may be, in the manner and to the extent that is reasonably necessary and in the best interests of the person examined or treated, in the same way that the physician or dentist could have acted if the person had been an adult of full legal capacity who consented to the examination or treatment. (4) Superfluous then, but revealing, was the advice the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta offered its members in 2002: From a practical standpoint, physicians should consult with the family of the individual and receive their approval prior to performing the treatment under consideration. (5) Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act Part 3, Division 1, of Alberta's new Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, Specific Decisions, both sanctions such advice and allays the anxiety underpinning it. (6) A health care provider--a medical practitioner, a nurse practitioner, a dentist--who has determined an adult lacks capacity to make a decision respecting either health care or temporary admission to or discharge from a residential facility may turn to another, to the first in a ranked list of nearest relatives: 1(x) (i) spouse or interdependent partner; (ii) adult son or daughter; (iii) father or mother; (iv) adult brother or sister; (v) grandfather or grandmother; (vi) adult grandson or granddaughter; (vii) adult uncle or aunt; (viii) adult nephew or niece. (7) Those of the whole blood, and the elder or eldest of two or more in the same category, are preferred, regardless of sex. (8) Capability and availability, but also recent contact with and knowledge of the adult--of his or her beliefs and values or wishes respecting the decision to be made--are required as well. Finally, there must be no dispute with the adult that might affect the relative's ability to comply with the duties of a specific decision maker. …

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,721
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,002

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 Opus0,108
Tête enseignante GPT0,484
Écart entre enseignants0,376 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

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'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesTravaux en français237 207