Psychiatric issues in retrospective challenges of testamentary capacity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Challenges to Wills on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity are likely to increase due to a combination of economic factors, high prevalence of mental disorders in old age and the complexity of many modern families. Geriatric psychiatrists and other experts will be asked to provide expert assessment of the testamentary capacity of individuals whose Wills are being challenged retrospectively. The traditional criteria described in the Banks vs Goodfellow case have been held as the standard for testamentary capacity. However, these criteria may not be comprehensive enough for the coming generation of expert assessors. METHOD: The literature and selected international case law relevant to testamentary capacity were reviewed. Particular focus is placed on the conceptual and empirical approaches to the assessment of complex capacities that may inform the development of specific legal standards. In addition, 25 consecutive medico-legal reports on retrospective testamentary capacity were analyzed according to co-morbid medical and psychiatric disorders as well as psychosocial and behavioural variables. Illustrative case vignettes are included. RESULTS: The typical profile for retrospective challenges to testamentary capacity included a radical change from a previous Will (72%), where undue influence was alleged (56%), in a testator with no biological children (52%), who executed the Will less than a year prior to death (48%). Co-morbid conditions were dementia (40%), alcohol abuse (28%) and other neurological/psychiatric conditions (28%). CONCLUSIONS: While Banks vs Goodfellow continues to provide a sound basis for assessing testamentary (task-specific) capacity, the complexity and subtlety of the issues reflected in these cases highlight the need to go beyond the traditional criteria and assess situation-specific factors. Expert assessors need to determine whether the testator appreciated the consequences of executing or changing a Will, especially when there has been a radical change in the context of a complex or conflictual family environment. Empirical studies addressing the cognitive functions relevant to testamentary capacity and the development of legal standards based on a competency construct may also help to inform retrospective capacity assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it