Determining Mental Capacity and Identifying Surrogates: The Need for Clearer Guidance on Medical Decision-Making in Malaysia

IF 1.1 Q3 ETHICS Asian Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s41649-024-00313-5
Mark Kiak Min Tan
{"title":"Determining Mental Capacity and Identifying Surrogates: The Need for Clearer Guidance on Medical Decision-Making in Malaysia","authors":"Mark Kiak Min Tan","doi":"10.1007/s41649-024-00313-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The dilemmas and uncertainties related to determining mental capacity and surrogate decision-making are universally recognised as one of the most important concepts in the field of clinical ethics. In Malaysia, healthcare practitioners often find both determining decision-making capacity of patients, and identifying surrogate decision makers for incapacitated patients confusing. This paper explores the concepts of decision-making capacity and surrogate decision-making, identifying key components and associated principles such as substituted judgement and best interests. It reviews current provisions and guidances available in Malaysia that are related to these issues, including the Power of Attorney Act 1949 (revised 1990), Mental Health Act 2001, and various guidelines. It then highlights the challenges encountered in the local clinical setting due to the lack of specific legislation and clear guidance. Finally, this paper provides recommendations for improvements to address these issues in order to safeguard both the clinical practice of healthcare professionals and the rights of patients. These recommendations include the establishment of a regulatory framework with four main domains: clear and objective criteria for mental capacity assessment, provisions for advance decision-making while patients still possess mental capacity, a ladder or hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers, and provisions for appropriate surrogate decision-making standards, as well as the need for advocacy and awareness education among both the general public and healthcare professionals.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"117 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-024-00313-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The dilemmas and uncertainties related to determining mental capacity and surrogate decision-making are universally recognised as one of the most important concepts in the field of clinical ethics. In Malaysia, healthcare practitioners often find both determining decision-making capacity of patients, and identifying surrogate decision makers for incapacitated patients confusing. This paper explores the concepts of decision-making capacity and surrogate decision-making, identifying key components and associated principles such as substituted judgement and best interests. It reviews current provisions and guidances available in Malaysia that are related to these issues, including the Power of Attorney Act 1949 (revised 1990), Mental Health Act 2001, and various guidelines. It then highlights the challenges encountered in the local clinical setting due to the lack of specific legislation and clear guidance. Finally, this paper provides recommendations for improvements to address these issues in order to safeguard both the clinical practice of healthcare professionals and the rights of patients. These recommendations include the establishment of a regulatory framework with four main domains: clear and objective criteria for mental capacity assessment, provisions for advance decision-making while patients still possess mental capacity, a ladder or hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers, and provisions for appropriate surrogate decision-making standards, as well as the need for advocacy and awareness education among both the general public and healthcare professionals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
确定心理能力和识别替代品:马来西亚需要更明确的医疗决策指导。
与确定心理能力和替代决策相关的困境和不确定性被普遍认为是临床伦理学领域最重要的概念之一。在马来西亚,医疗保健从业人员经常发现确定患者的决策能力,并为无行为能力的患者确定替代决策者令人困惑。本文探讨了决策能力和替代决策的概念,确定了关键组成部分和相关原则,如替代判断和最佳利益。报告审查了马来西亚与这些问题有关的现行规定和指导方针,包括《1949年授权法》(1990年修订)、《2001年精神卫生法》和各种指导方针。然后,它强调了由于缺乏具体的立法和明确的指导,在当地临床环境中遇到的挑战。最后,本文提供了改进建议,以解决这些问题,以保障医疗保健专业人员的临床实践和患者的权利。这些建议包括建立一个有四个主要领域的管理框架:精神能力评估的明确和客观标准,在患者仍有精神能力时预先作出决策的规定,替代决策者的阶梯或等级制度,适当的替代决策标准的规定,以及在公众和保健专业人员中进行宣传和认识教育的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
期刊最新文献
Promoting Dialogue and Debate in Bioethics Correction to: Knowledge and Perceptions of Members and Staff of Ethics Committees and Investigators in China toward Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research Insights from the Coalface of Bioethics Navigating Structural Tensions: Australian Surrogacy Facilitators’ Understanding on Children’s Rights in Cross-Border Surrogacy Should Malaysia Widen Patient Access to Medical Records? An Ethical Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1