Consent and Assent in the Legally Incompetent Patient: Navigating Ethical and Legal Complexities in Modern Medical Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

The principle of informed consent forms the cornerstone of contemporary medical ethics and practice. However, its application becomes significantly more complex when dealing with patients who lack legal capacity to provide consent. This review examines the ethical, legal, and practical frameworks governing consent and assent in legally incompetent individuals, including minors, patients with intellectual disabilities, those with advanced dementia, and individuals with acute cognitive impairment. We explore the evolution of consent doctrine, the distinction between consent and assent, surrogate decision-making frameworks, and emerging challenges in modern medical practice. Understanding these principles is essential for internists who increasingly care for vulnerable populations requiring complex medical interventions.

Introduction

The doctrine of informed consent, rooted in the principle of patient autonomy, has evolved from the Nuremberg Code (1947) through landmark legal cases such as Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914) and Canterbury v. Spence (1972).¹ Justice Cardozo's famous dictum—"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body"—established the foundation for modern consent practices.² However, this seemingly straightforward principle becomes profoundly complex when patients lack the capacity to make autonomous decisions.

Approximately 40% of hospitalized medical patients may lack decision-making capacity at some point during their admission, with higher rates among elderly patients and those in intensive care settings.³ As internists increasingly care for aging populations and patients with chronic neurological conditions, understanding the nuances of consent in the legally incompetent becomes paramount.

Defining Legal Incompetence and Capacity

Legal incompetence must be distinguished from decision-making incapacity. Legal incompetence refers to a formal judicial determination that an individual cannot manage their personal or financial affairs, resulting in appointment of a guardian or conservator. In contrast, decision-making incapacity is a clinical determination that a patient cannot make a specific medical decision at a particular time.⁴

Assessing Decision-Making Capacity

The assessment of capacity is decision-specific and time-specific, not a global determination. Four functional criteria are universally recognized:⁵

1. Understanding: Can the patient comprehend relevant information about their condition and proposed treatment?
2. Appreciation: Does the patient recognize how this information applies to their own situation?
3. Reasoning: Can the patient manipulate information rationally and compare alternatives?
4. Expression of choice: Can the patient communicate a stable choice?

Pearl: Capacity exists on a sliding scale—higher-risk decisions require greater capacity. A patient may have capacity to refuse a blood draw but lack capacity to refuse life-saving surgery.

Oyster: Depression, delirium, and dementia—the "three Ds"—are the most common causes of impaired capacity in medical settings, yet delirium is frequently missed, affecting up to 30% of hospitalized elderly patients.⁶

Categories of Legally Incompetent Patients

1. Minors

The age of medical majority varies by jurisdiction but is typically 18 years. However, multiple exceptions exist:

• Emancipated minors: Those who are married, in military service, or financially independent
• Mature minors: Adolescents who demonstrate sufficient maturity to make specific medical decisions (recognized in many jurisdictions)
• Emergency situations: When parental consent cannot be obtained and delay would harm the child⁷

Hack: For adolescents aged 14-17 presenting alone, consider whether mature minor doctrine applies in your jurisdiction. Document the assessment of maturity carefully, including the patient's understanding of risks, benefits, and alternatives.

The concept of assent is particularly important in pediatrics. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends obtaining assent from children aged 7 and older for medical procedures, even when parental consent is legally sufficient.⁸ Assent involves:

• Helping the patient understand their condition in age-appropriate terms
• Disclosing the nature of proposed interventions
• Assessing the patient's understanding and willingness to proceed
• Soliciting the patient's willingness to participate

Pearl: Pediatric assent should be documented as carefully as adult consent. Phrases like "procedure explained to patient in age-appropriate language; patient verbalized understanding and agreement" provide important medicolegal protection.

2. Adults with Intellectual Disabilities

Approximately 1-3% of the population has intellectual disability, yet these individuals are often capable of participating meaningfully in medical decisions.⁹ The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) emphasizes supported decision-making rather than substituted judgment.¹⁰

Hack: Use the "teach-back" method: explain the decision, ask the patient to explain it back to you, and document their understanding. Many patients with mild-moderate intellectual disability can provide valid consent with appropriate support.

Key considerations include:

• Capacity should be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary
• Assessment tools like the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT-T) can aid evaluation¹¹
• Reasonable accommodations (visual aids, simplified language, extended time) should be provided
• Guardianship should be limited in scope when possible (e.g., financial but not medical)

3. Patients with Dementia

With 55 million people living with dementia worldwide, internists frequently encounter consent challenges in this population.¹² Capacity in dementia fluctuates and is often decision-specific—patients may retain capacity for some decisions while lacking it for others.

Oyster: The presence of dementia diagnosis does not automatically equal incapacity. Studies show that 50-75% of patients with mild dementia retain capacity for medical decisions.¹³

Advanced care planning, including advance directives and durable power of attorney for healthcare, should be completed early in the disease course when capacity is intact. The timing is crucial—too early and patients may not be ready; too late and capacity may be lost.

4. Acute Cognitive Impairment

Delirium, acute stroke, metabolic encephalopathy, and other acute conditions commonly impair decision-making capacity in hospitalized patients. These situations require:

• Identification and treatment of reversible causes
• Temporary surrogate decision-making while capacity is impaired
• Reassessment as clinical status changes
• Documentation of capacity assessments in the medical record¹⁴

Hack: Use validated screening tools like the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) daily in hospitalized elderly patients. Early delirium detection allows for intervention and may restore capacity.⁶

Surrogate Decision-Making Frameworks

When patients lack capacity and no advance directive exists, surrogate decision-makers are identified through a hierarchy that varies by jurisdiction but typically follows:¹⁵

1. Court-appointed guardian (if one exists)
2. Healthcare power of attorney/proxy
3. Spouse or domestic partner
4. Adult children (majority agreement)
5. Parents
6. Adult siblings
7. Other relatives
8. Close friends

Pearl: Document the surrogate's relationship to the patient and their legal authority. If multiple potential surrogates exist (e.g., several adult children), document attempts to achieve consensus and the rationale for accepting one person's decision.

Standards for Surrogate Decision-Making

Surrogates should apply decision-making standards in the following order:¹⁶

1. Substituted judgment: What would the patient have wanted? Based on prior expressed wishes, values, and beliefs.
2. Best interests: If the patient's wishes are unknown, what outcome best promotes the patient's welfare considering benefits, burdens, and quality of life?
3. Reasonable person standard: What would a reasonable person want in similar circumstances?

Oyster: Surrogates often struggle with substituted judgment, substituting their own preferences for the patient's. Phrases like "What would [patient name] have wanted?" rather than "What do you think we should do?" can help refocus the discussion.¹⁷

Special Situations and Ethical Dilemmas

Disagreement Between Patient and Surrogate

When a patient with marginal capacity expresses wishes that conflict with a surrogate's decision, careful evaluation is needed:

• Reassess capacity using structured tools
• Consider whether the patient's expressed wishes are consistent with their long-held values
• Involve ethics consultation when disagreement persists
• Remember that capacity may be present for refusing treatment even when absent for consenting to complex interventions¹⁸

Emergencies and Implied Consent

Emergency treatment may proceed without explicit consent based on the doctrine of implied consent—the presumption that a reasonable person would consent to life-saving treatment.¹⁹ However, this does not apply when:

• The patient has previously refused treatment (e.g., through advance directive)
• The patient currently refuses despite incapacity, and the refusal is consistent with known values
• The surrogate refuses based on clear knowledge of patient wishes

Hack: In emergencies, document: (1) the emergency nature of the situation, (2) inability to obtain consent, (3) treatment is consistent with standard of care, and (4) presumed consent based on best interests.

Cultural Considerations

Cultural norms around decision-making vary significantly. Some cultures emphasize family-centered rather than patient-centered decision-making.²⁰ While respecting cultural values, physicians must balance this with legal requirements for informed consent.

Pearl: Ask patients early in the clinical relationship: "How would you like medical decisions to be made? Do you want to make decisions yourself, or would you prefer to involve family members?" Document this preference.

Research Participation

The legally incompetent represent a vulnerable population requiring special protections in research. The Common Rule (45 CFR 46) requires:²¹

• Assent from those capable of providing it
• Permission from legally authorized representatives
• Additional safeguards for minimal risk research
• Institutional Review Board approval with specific attention to vulnerable populations

Advance Care Planning

Encouraging advance care planning in patients who currently have capacity is the most effective strategy for respecting future wishes. Key documents include:²²

• Advance directives: Living wills specifying treatment preferences
• Durable power of attorney for healthcare: Designating a surrogate decision-maker
• POLST/MOLST forms: Portable medical orders for seriously ill patients

Hack: Introduce advance care planning during routine preventive visits for patients over 65, those with chronic serious illness, or before elective high-risk procedures. Frame it as "planning ahead" rather than "end of life" to reduce anxiety.

Studies show that advance care planning improves goal-concordant care and reduces unwanted intensive care, while also decreasing family anxiety and depression.²³

Documentation Best Practices

Thorough documentation protects both patient rights and physician liability:²⁴

1. Document the capacity assessment including specific criteria evaluated
2. Record who provided consent/assent and their relationship to the patient
3. Document information disclosed and patient/surrogate understanding
4. Note questions asked and answered
5. Record voluntary nature of decision
6. For surrogate decisions, document the standard applied (substituted judgment vs. best interests)

Oyster: Generic phrases like "risks and benefits discussed" are insufficient. Specify what risks were discussed and document patient/surrogate verbalized understanding.

Emerging Challenges

Telemedicine

Remote assessment of capacity presents unique challenges, particularly in detecting subtle cognitive impairment. Best practices include:²⁵

• Use of validated remote assessment tools
• Involvement of family members when appropriate
• Lower threshold for requesting in-person evaluation
• Careful documentation of assessment limitations

Artificial Intelligence and Decision Supports

As AI tools emerge to assist with capacity assessment and decision-making, ethical frameworks must address:

• Algorithm transparency and bias
• Human oversight requirements
• Patient and surrogate understanding of AI involvement²⁶

Supported Decision-Making Models

There is growing emphasis on supported decision-making as an alternative to guardianship, particularly for individuals with intellectual disabilities. This model provides assistance without removing legal capacity.²⁷

Conclusion

Navigating consent and assent in legally incompetent patients requires balancing respect for autonomy, beneficence, and protection of vulnerable individuals. Key principles include:

1. Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific
2. Assent should be sought even when legal consent is not required
3. Advance care planning is the best tool for respecting future wishes
4. Surrogates should apply substituted judgment when patient wishes are known
5. Thorough documentation protects all parties

As medical complexity increases and populations age, internists must master these principles to provide ethical, patient-centered care. Regular ethics education, institutional policies supporting capacity assessment, and low-threshold ethics consultation can support physicians in these challenging situations.

Final Pearl: When in doubt, consult your institution's ethics committee. These situations rarely have simple answers, and collaborative decision-making improves outcomes for patients, families, and healthcare teams.

References

1. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press; 1986.

2. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 NY 125, 105 NE 92 (1914).

3. Raymont V, Bingley W, Buchanan A, et al. Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors. Lancet. 2004;364(9443):1421-1427.

4. Appelbaum PS. Clinical practice. Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1834-1840.

5. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. Oxford University Press; 1998.

6. Inouye SK, Westendorp RG, Saczynski JS. Delirium in elderly people. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):911-922.

7. Katz AL, Webb SA. Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20161485.

8. Committee on Bioethics, American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20161484.

9. Maulik PK, Mascarenhas MN, Mathers CD, et al. Prevalence of intellectual disability: a meta-analysis of population-based studies. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(2):419-436.

10. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006.

11. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Hill-Fotouhi C. The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients' capacities to make treatment decisions. Psychiatr Serv. 1997;48(11):1415-1419.

12. World Health Organization. Dementia Fact Sheet. 2023.

13. Karlawish J. Measuring decision-making capacity in cognitively impaired individuals. Neurosignals. 2008;16(1):91-98.

14. Sessums LL, Zembrzuska H, Jackson JL. Does this patient have medical decision-making capacity? JAMA. 2011;306(4):420-427.

15. Pope TM. Legal fundamentals of surrogate decision making. Chest. 2012;141(4):1074-1081.

16. Buchanan AE, Brock DW. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. Cambridge University Press; 1989.

17. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(5):493-497.

18. Tunzi M. Can the patient decide? Evaluating patient capacity in practice. Am Fam Physician. 2001;64(2):299-306.

19. Iserson KV, Moskop JC. Triage in medicine, part I: concept, history, and types. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):275-281.

20. Blackhall LJ, Murphy ST, Frank G, et al. Ethnicity and attitudes toward patient autonomy. JAMA. 1995;274(10):820-825.

21. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ('Common Rule'). 45 CFR 46; 2018.

22. Sudore RL, Lum HD, You JJ, et al. Defining advance care planning for adults: a consensus definition from a multidisciplinary Delphi panel. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53(5):821-832.

23. Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Rietjens JA, van der Heide A. The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2014;28(8):1000-1025.

24. Bernat JL. Informed consent. Muscle Nerve. 2001;24(5):614-621.

25. Doraiswamy S, Abraham A, Mamtani R, Cheema S. Use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e24087.

26. Char DS, Shah NH, Magnus D. Implementing machine learning in health care—addressing ethical challenges. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(11):981-983.

27. Kohn NA, Blumenthal JA, Campbell AT. Supported decision-making: a viable alternative to guardianship? Penn State Law Rev. 2013;117:1111-1157.

---

Word Count: 2,000 words