Specific Health Care Decisions under Alberta's Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".