Search

Competing Interests: Intérêts concurrents: Matthew Weiss déclare avoir reçu des honoraires de consultation à titre de directeur médical de Transplant Québec, un organisme provincial à but non lucratif qui s’intéresse à la greffe d’organes. Aucun autre intérêt concurrent déclaré.

Background: The Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) and its accompanying Code of Practice (2007), govern research participation for adults with capacity and communication difficulties in England and Wales. We conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the application of these provisions from 2007 to 2019., Methods and Findings: We included studies with mental capacity in their criteria, involving participants aged 16 years and above, with capacity-affecting conditions and conducted in England and Wales after the implementation of the MCA. Clinical trials of medicines were excluded. We searched seven databases: Academic Search Complete, ASSIA, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PsycINFO and Science Direct. We used narrative synthesis to report our results. Our review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020195652. 28 studies of various research designs met our eligibility criteria: 14 (50.0%) were quantitative, 12 (42.9%) qualitative and 2 (7.1%) mixed methods. Included participants were adults with intellectual disabilities (n = 12), dementia (n = 9), mental health disorders (n = 2), autism (n = 3) and aphasia after stroke (n = 2). We found no studies involving adults with acquired brain injury. Diverse strategies were used in the recruitment of adults with capacity and communication difficulties with seven studies excluding individuals deemed to lack capacity., Conclusions: We found relatively few studies including adults with capacity and communication difficulties with existing regulations interpreted variably. Limited use of consultees and exclusions on the basis of capacity and communication difficulties indicate that this group continue to be under-represented in research. If health and social interventions are to be effective for this population, they need to be included in primary research. The use of strategic adaptations and accommodations during the recruitment process, may serve to support their inclusion., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In Re H (A Child) (Parental Responsibility: Vaccination), the Court of Appeal decided that vaccination did not represent 'grave' or 'serious' medical treatment and determined that, in the case of a child under the care of a Local Authority, court authorization for consent to and arrangement of vaccination is no longer required. This is due to the strong medical evidence in support of vaccination. Thus, with due reference to 33(3)(b) Children Act 1989 and while considering proportionality and, particularly, the proportionate response to interference with the parents' right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court held that vaccination is in line with the best interests of the child. This commentary supports this judgment but identifies a slight prospective anomaly in the approach adopted to children in care and those who are not in care. The resolution of this dichotomy lies in broadening the scope of King LJ's approach in this case., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press; All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Lately, number of divorces is increasing, nevertheless, a parents' divorce can become a traumatic problem for paediatric patients. Consequently, the aim of this study was to analyze the ethical conflicts that appear in the relationship between physician/parents/son/daughter, and more specifically those that a divorce generates. A descriptive study was developed through a survey composed by 39 items. Previously, an exhaustive bibliographic analysis was carried out. Our results show that only 35% of paediatricians interviewed have been educated in bioethics although this issue is important in daily practice. Other items show that 57,5% would not cancel a pharmacological treatment in order to improve quality of life. Also, they would react against a wrong parents' decision (82,5%). They give low value to the minor`s decision (6,05%), and rarely inform exclusively to adolescents (5%). In contrast, paediatricians sometimes ask to adolescents (20%) in first place and involved them to decide in 90% of cases. Besides, there are differences in the relation with fathers and mothers, 17,5% of mothers are informed exclusively, a fact that never happens with fathers. Ethics has an intrinsic value very important in daily clinical decisions in order to respect the rules and to adapt them to the situation of every paediatric patient. When an important ethical conflict become, as a divorce is, it is essential to know who must be informed and the rights everyone has to make a decision. It is complicated to the paediatricians yet to develop 41/2002 law for Patient's autonomy.

The past decade has witnessed escalating legal and ethical challenges to the diagnosis of death by neurologic criteria (DNC). The legal tactic of demanding consent for the apnea test, if successful, can halt the DNC. However, US law is currently unsettled and inconsistent in this matter. Consent has been required in several trial cases in Montana and Kansas but not in Virginia and Nevada. In this paper, we analyze and evaluate the legal and ethical bases for requiring consent before apnea testing and defend such a requirement by appealing to ethical and legal principles of informed consent and battery and the right to refuse medical treatment. We conclude by considering and rebutting two major objections to a consent requirement for apnea testing: (1) a justice-based objection to allocate scarce resources fairly and (2) a social utility objection that halting the diagnosis of brain death will reduce the number of organ donors.

This contribution examines deprivation of liberty in Belgian healthcare within the frameworks of the ECHR and CRPD. We develop and apply an ECHR-based framework to demonstrate that it is not the admissions to care facilities based on Belgium's involuntary commitment law that give rise to the unjustified deprivation of liberty, but those based on representation regimes. This can be remedied by broadening Belgium's involuntary commitment law. However, doing so would go against a CRPD-based framework, which is incompatible with the ECHR; the former opposes disability-based laws. Building on the right to legal capacity and to liberty, the scope of the CRPD's approach is uncovered. It is suggested that to reconcile the two frameworks, Belgium's involuntary commitment law should be abolished, and representation regimes should be changed to avoid (rather than to justify) deprivation of liberty. Although its desirability is open for discussion, this could solve a problem that occurs worldwide.

Stroke is one of the most common conditions neurologists treat in emergency situations. This article examines the issues of surrogate decision makers and the physician's potential legal liability in the context of the administration or nonadministration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) in a common emergency department scenario.

Although death by neurologic criteria (brain death) is legally recognized throughout the United States, state laws and clinical practice vary concerning three key issues: (1) the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic criteria, (2) management of family objections before determination of death by neurologic criteria, and (3) management of religious objections to declaration of death by neurologic criteria. The American Academy of Neurology and other medical stakeholder organizations involved in the determination of death by neurologic criteria have undertaken concerted action to address variation in clinical practice in order to ensure the integrity of brain death determination. To complement this effort, state policymakers must revise legislation on the use of neurologic criteria to declare death. We review the legal history and current laws regarding neurologic criteria to declare death and offer proposed revisions to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and the rationale for these recommendations.

The shortage of organs for transplantation by its nature prompts ethical dilemmas. For example, although there is an imperative to save human life and reduce suffering by maximising the supply of vital organs, there is an equally important obligation to ensure that the process by which we increase the supply respects the rights of all stakeholders. In a relatively unexamined practice in the USA, organs are procured from unrepresented decedents without their express consent. Unrepresented decedents have no known healthcare wishes or advance care planning document; they also lack a surrogate. The Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (RUAGA) of 2006 sends a mixed message about the procurement of organs from this patient population and there are hospitals that authorise donation. In addition, in adopting the RUAGA, some states included provisions that clearly allow organ procurement from unrepresented decedents. An important unanswered question is whether this practice meets the canons of ethical permissibility. The current Brief Report presents two principled approaches to the topic as a way of highlighting some of the complexities involved. Concluding remarks offer suggestions for future research and discussion., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Unrepresented patients are those who have no surrogate or advance directive to guide medical decision making for them when they become incapacitated. While there is no perfect solution to the problem of making medical decisions for such vulnerable patients, 3 different approaches are noted in the literature: a physician approach, an ethics committee approach, and a guardianship approach. Recent policies and laws have required an approach that is "tiered" with respect to both who is involved and the gravity of the medical treatment questions at issue. In a general sense, some variant of a tiered approach is likely the best possible solution for jurisdictions and health institutions-both those already with and those without a tiered approach-to the challenging puzzle of treating unrepresented patients., (© 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Increasingly, clinicians confront patients who are incapacitated and have no available surrogate. Such unrepresented patients cannot consent to proposed health care, and nobody else is available who is authorized to consent on their behalf. Despite the challenge of decision making for unrepresented patients, few laws or professional organization policy statements offer a solution. This article helps fill this void by describing the top 5 things clinicians should know when they are caring for unrepresented patients: (1) realize that these patients are highly vulnerable; (2) confirm that the patient is incapacitated; (3) confirm that the patient is unrepresented; (4) appreciate variability among state law decision-making processes for unrepresented patients; (5) use guardianship only as a last resort., (© 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Unrepresented patients are hospital patients who lack decision-making capacity but have no advance directive and no one to serve as a legally authorized surrogate. An important first step in efforts to change the law and develop organizational policies that help respond to these patients' needs is determining which patients should be considered unrepresented and which aspects of hospital care should receive attention. This article proposes working definitions of unrepresented patient and important medical decisions based on the work of one statewide initiative, the Unrepresented Patients Project for Illinois., (© 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Research involving adults who lack the capacity to provide informed consent can be challenging. In England and Wales there are legal provisions for consulting with others who know the person with impaired capacity. The role of the 'proxy' (or 'surrogate') is to advise researchers about the person's wishes and feelings or to provide consent on the person's behalf for a clinical trial of a medicine. Information about the study is usually provided to the proxy; however, little information is available to proxies about their role, or the appropriate legal and ethical basis for their decision, to help inform their decision-making. The aim of this study was to analyse the written information that is provided to consultees and legal representatives., Methods: Studies including adults lacking capacity to consent which utilised consultees or legal representatives were identified using the UK Clinical Trials Gateway database. A representative sample (n = 30) were randomly selected. Information sheets and other study documents provided to proxies were obtained, and relevant content was extracted. Content analysis was conducted through four stages: decontextualisation of the unit of analysis, recontextualisation, categorisation, and compilation. The data were summarised narratively according to each theme and category., Results: Considerable variation was found in the written information sheets provided to proxies. Most directed proxies to consider the wishes and feelings of the person who lacked capacity and to consult with others during the decision-making process. However, a small number of studies extended the scope of the proxy's role to consider the person's suitability or eligibility for the study. Particular discrepancies were found in information provided to those acting as consultees or legal representatives in a professional, as opposed to a personal, capacity. Incorrect uses of terminology were frequently found, and a small number of studies inaccurately interpreted the law., Conclusions: Despite undergoing ethical review, study documents lacked essential information, incorrectly used terminology, and conflated professionals' clinical and representation roles. Future recommendations include ensuring proxies are provided with adequate and accurate information which complies with the legal frameworks. Further research is needed to explore the information and decision-making needs of those acting as consultees and legal representatives.

Clinical trials in emergency situations present unique challenges, because they involve enrolling individuals who lack capacity to consent in the context of acute illness or injury. The US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration regulations allowing an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) in these circumstances contain requirements for community consultation, public disclosure and restrictions on study risks and benefits. In this paper, we analyse an issue raised in the regulations that has received little attention or analysis but is ethically complex. This challenge is when to solicit and honour objections to EFIC trial enrolment, including from non-legally appointed representatives. We address novel questions involving whose objections should be honoured, what level of understanding is necessary for objections to be considered valid and how hard investigators should work to offer an opportunity to object. We present a set of criteria that provide conceptual and practical guidance. We argue that objections should be honoured if they undermine one of the key assumptions that allows for the permissibility of EFIC trials: that individuals would likely not object to enrolment based on their values or preferences. We then clarify the practical implications of this approach through examination of three cases of refusal in an EFIC study., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Pneumonia poses a significant health risk in aging societies. We aimed to elucidate the determinative value of frailty for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in pneumonia patients., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUBH) in Korea. Medical records of 431 pneumonia patients, aged 65 years and older, who were admitted between June 2014 and May 2015 were analyzed. Patients were categorized into DNR and no-DNR groups., Results: Among the 65 patients (15.1% of pneumonia patients) who completed DNR documents, 24 patients were survived, and 21 patients decided imminent to death (<24 hours before death), with all decisions determined by surrogates. The DNR group tended to be older and frail, with higher rates of renal impairment and malnutrition, and had a lower microbiology detection effort than the no-DNR group. The DNR group used a high number of broad-spectrum antibiotics, experienced high levels of in-hospital (63.1% vs 5.7%, P <0.001) and 30-day (64.6% vs 9.6%, P <0.001) mortality rates, and had prolonged hospital stays (median length of hospital stay, 12 vs 9 days, P =0.020). Frailty was independently associated with DNR status even after adjustment for sepsis, septic shock, and the pneumonia severity index (PSI) score. Frailty also significantly influenced healthcare setting transitions after adjustment for sepsis, septic shock, and the PSI., Conclusion: We identified the factors associated with DNR orders and their prognoses among elderly Koreans with pneumonia. Frailty was significantly associated with DNR decision and healthcare setting transitions in pneumonia patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Professionals who discover misconduct or other undisclosed information that would be material to the participation of another party (such as a donor, gestational carrier, intended parent, or lawyer) in an assisted reproductive technology arrangement should encourage disclosure to that party. In some instances, it is ethically permissible for the physician either to disclose material information to the affected party or to decline to provide care. In all cases involving the legal status or rights of the parties, referral to legal professionals is advised. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2014 (Fertil Steril 2014;101:38-42)., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Informed consent is gaining an ever-important place in modern medicine. The practice of patient-centered medicine along with evidence-based medicine requires a balance between the patient's wishes and the physician's oath to do no harm. Surrogate consent, emergency consent, and intraoperative consultation are 3 situations prone to legal and ethical dilemmas in the fulfillment of informed consent. By examining the proposed models and legal precedents that address the challenges in informed consent, discussion of these dilemmas in the context of both law and bioethics may provide a better understanding of how to resolve them. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e741-e746.]., (Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.)

Objective: To examine health and social care professionals' understanding of the legislation governing research involving adults lacking mental capacity in England and Wales., Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted using a series of vignettes. Participants were asked to select the legally authorised decision-maker in each scenario and provide supporting reasons. Responses were compared with existing legal frameworks and analysed according to their level of concordance., Results: One hundred and twenty-seven professionals participated. Levels of discordance between responses and the legal frameworks were high across all five scenarios (76%-82%). Nearly half of the participants (46%) provided responses that were discordant in all scenarios. Only two participants (2%) provided concordant responses across all five scenarios., Discussion: Participants demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the legal frameworks, the locus of authority and the legal basis for decision-making. The findings raise concern about the accessibility of research for those who lack capacity, the ability to conduct research involving such groups and the impact on the evidence base for their care., Conclusion: This is the first study to examine health and social care professionals' knowledge and understanding of the dual legal frameworks in the UK. Health and social care professionals' understanding and attitudes towards research involving adults with incapacity may warrant further in-depth exploration. The findings from this survey suggest that greater training and education is required., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Against the background of a recommended hysterectomy, this article examines the current requirement in Saudi Arabia for the husband's consent for any medical procedure that affects the reproductive ability of his wife. The history and background of this decree is explained, along with the major arguments for its support. Additionally, the legitimacy of the requirement is discussed from the Islamic and legal perspectives. Special attention is given to relevant cultural considerations, such as the family unit, the medical community, and the larger Saudi society. Arguments advocating for discontinuing the requirement are offered along with measures to implement in order to overcome this social artifact.

It is widely accepted among medical ethicists that competence is a necessary condition for informed consent. In this view, if a patient is incompetent to make a particular treatment decision, the decision must be based on an advance directive or made by a substitute decision-maker on behalf of the patient. We call this the competence model. According to a recent report of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights, article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) presents a wholesale rejection of the competence model. The High Commissioner here adopts the interpretation of article 12 proposed by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. On this interpretation, CRPD article 12 renders it impermissible to deny persons with mental disabilities the right to make treatment decisions on the basis of impaired decision-making capacity and demands the replacement of all regimes of substitute decision-making by supported decision-making. In this paper, we explicate six adverse consequences of CRPD article 12 for persons with mental disabilities and propose an alternative way forward. The proposed model combines the strengths of the competence model and supported decision-making., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Older adults who have reduced decision-making capacity and no family or friends to compensate for these deficiencies are known as unbefriended and require a public guardian. The purpose of this study was to review the peer-reviewed and grey literature to determine the scope of available research on unbefriended older adults in Canada and the United States. We found limited research examining unbefriended older adults. No Canadian studies or reports were located. Unbefriended older adults were childless or had fewer children, were more cognitively impaired, and were older than older adults who were not unbefriended. These findings demonstrate a stark scarcity of studies on unbefriended older adults. Research is urgently needed using standardized data collection of guardianship status in order to enable studies of the prevalence of public guardianship in Canada.

Background: Severe affective and psychotic disorders may be accompanied by legal incapacity. If in this case the patient refuses treatment and in parallel there is a risk of serious damage to health, treatment can be carried out against the patient's non-autonomous will under defined prerequisites. Due to its good and partly superior effectiveness in the treatment of severe and pharmacotherapy-resistant affective and psychotic disorders, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an important treatment option in such constellations., Aim: Description of the general principles and prerequisites of therapeutic measures against the patient's will., Methods: Based on a case report, the application of ECT as a medical measure against the patient's will is discussed and assessed in an interdisciplinary approach from clinical, legal, and ethical perspectives., Results and Discussion: The (empirical) evidence on the general effectiveness of ECT, as well as its application against the will of patients with legal incapacity, clearly shows a positive benefit-risk ratio. When performed against the patient's will, ECT as all compulsory medical interventions, represents a severe encroachment on the individual's fundamental rights of both physical integrity and self-determination. Nevertheless, its application may be medically indicated, legally admissible and ethically appropriate in individual cases to prevent the threat of serious damage to the patient's health. Ethical and legal prerequisites of treatment against the patient's will should be evaluated by a multiprofessional team and the patient's legal guardian should be involved from an early stage.

Background and Aim: The social role of the minor, as indeed that of the physician, has changed markedly. This transformation has given rise to new patterns and responsibilities in the management of healthcare procedures that involve minors., Discussion: According to international legislation, in the clinical setting, as in other areas of social life, minors have the right to be heard and to have their opinions taken into consideration as an increasingly determining factor, in accordance with their age and degree of maturity and discernment. The authors describe the right to information and the decision-making process when the patient is a minor and underline the role of the parties involved (physicians, parents, under-age patient, judge) in various circumstances. Specifically, the paper analyzes the ethical and legal issues relating to the entitlement to  decisions concerning the medical treatment of children and assesses the importance that Italian law attaches to the will of minors in the healthcare choices that affect them., Conclusions: Healthcare workers  are called upon to face new challenges in order to ensure that healthcare services are able to safeguard the interests of minors while, at the same time, respecting their will. How to evaluate children's competence to consent and how to balance the autonomy of parents and minors are crucial questions which the law courts in the various countries are increasingly being asked to address. These issues require close collaboration among various figures (parents, doctors, psychologists, judges) and imply the ethical need to undergo continuous training.

Clozapine-induced agranulocytosis, a potentially serious adverse effect, is a limiting factor for its therapeutic use, leading to the suspension of the drug. Its annual incidence in Argentina is 0.05%. In 2000, under provision number 935, the ANMAT approved the Monitoring Program for Ambulatory and Inpatient Patients Treated with Clozapine. In this provision arises the obligation to sign the informed consent where the patient is informed of the risks and benefts of the treatment. In psychiatric care practice patients may not possess, because of their altered psychic state, the level of competence necessary to sign informed consent for their treatment with clozapine. The objective of the present work is to analyze the doctrine of Informed Consent by Representation for the users of clozapine, as well as to propose a decision algorithm for its application in clinical practice.

Background: Although state surrogate laws are the most common way surrogate decision makers are identified, no studies have been conducted to determine physician understanding of these laws or how these laws are utilized during clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to better understand how surrogate decision-making laws function in practice., Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 412 physicians working in Indiana hospitals was conducted between November 2014 and January 2015 to determine physicians' knowledge of Indiana's surrogate decision-making law and physicians' approaches to hypothetical cases using the law in clinical practice., Results: Fewer than half of physicians (48%) were able to correctly identify all legally allowable surrogate decision makers. Of those physicians who knew the law, nearly all of them (98%) indicated that they would violate the law during clinical practice by allowing nonlegal surrogates such as grandchildren to make medical decisions., Conclusions: A majority of physicians endorse relying on surrogates who have strong ties to the patient but are not legally allowable in Indiana. It is possible that these decisions reflect sound ethical reasoning even though they are illegal. Due to the narrow construction of some state surrogate decision laws, physicians may be placed in the position where they must either choose to follow medical ethical principles or the law. To alleviate these issues, state surrogate decision laws need to be amended to include a broader list of surrogates, such as extended family and close friends.

Objectives: The new European Union directives affecting clinical trials of medicines introduced important changes for Spain, leading to the publication of a Royal Decree regulating the conduct of clinical trials that went into effect in January 2016. The decree sets out the principles for complying with the EU directives, regulates the work of institutional review boards (IRBs) or ethics committees that review research proposals, introduces means to facilitate clinical research, and clarifies the role of the Spanish register of clinical trials, among other topics. This paper discusses the main changes that have been introduced, especially those intended to facilitate research, such as the new concepts of low intervention trial and noncommercial clinical research. These concepts may be particularly useful for clinical trials designed by emergency medicine physicians. We also comment on changes affecting vulnerable populations and the documents that must be presented to both the researchers' IRB and the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Care Products.

Minor-aged patients are often brought to the pediatrician for nonurgent acute medical care, physical examinations, or health supervision visits by someone other than their legally authorized representative, which, in most situations, is a parent. These surrogates or proxies can be members of the child's extended family, such as a grandparent, adult sibling, or aunt/uncle; a noncustodial parent or stepparent in cases of divorce and remarriage; an adult who lives in the home but is not biologically or legally related to the child; or even a child care provider (eg, au pair, nanny, private-duty nurse/nurse's aide, group home supervisor). This report identifies common situations in which pediatricians may encounter "consent by proxy" for nonurgent medical care for minors, including physical examinations, and explains the potential for liability exposure associated with these circumstances. The report suggests practical steps that balance the need to minimize the physician's liability exposure with the patient's access to health care. Key issues to be considered when creating or updating office policies for obtaining and documenting consent by proxy are offered., (Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Medical reports are required to support court applications to appoint a deputy to make decisions on behalf of a person who has lost mental capacity. The doctor writing such a medical report needs to be able to systematically assess the mental capacity of the person in question, in order to gather the necessary evidence for the court to make a decision. If the medical report is not adequate, the application will be rejected and the appointment of the deputy delayed. This article sets out best practices for performing the assessment and writing the medical report, common errors, and issues of concern., (Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.)

Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a potent and successful method for the treatment of severe psychiatric disorders. Severe depressive and psychotic disorders may lead to legal incapacity and inability to consent. In Germany, administration of ECT against the patient's will is feasible under certain constellations and is regulated under the terms of the guardianship law., Objective: This article outlines the prevalence, effectiveness and tolerability of ECT when applied in nonconsenting patients., Material and Methods: Case report and literature review., Results: The literature on ECT as a treatment in nonconsenting patients is relatively sparse. In 2008 the prevalence in Germany was less than 0.5 % of all patients receiving ECT. Case reports and case series suggest a good and equal level of effectiveness when compared to consenting patients. In the course of treatment the majority of patients consented to receive further ECT and retrospectively judged ECT as helpful., Conclusion: The use of ECT is a highly effective treatment in severe psychiatric disorders even when administered as treatment in nonconsenting patients. It can be lifesaving and lead to a rapid improvement of symptoms and relief from severe suffering also from the patients' perspective. Thus, it seems unethical not to consider ECT as a treatment against the nonautonomous will of legally incompetent patients in individual cases. Nevertheless, physicians should always seek to obtain the patients' consent as soon as possible for both legal and ethical reasons.

In the United States, authoritative legal guidance remains sparse on whether or when clinicians may stop life-sustaining treatment without consent. Fortunately, several significant legislative and judicial developments over the past two years offer some clarity. We group these legal developments into the following seven categories: 1. Lawsuits for Damages 2. Amendments to the Texas Advance Directives Act 3. Constitutional Attack on TADA 4. Legislation Prohibiting Clinicians 5. Legislation Authorizing Clinicians 6. Cases from Canada 7. Cases from the United Kingdom., (Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)