Legal Issues in Dementia

doi:10.1017/9781108985055.027

Chapter 27 - Legal Issues in Dementia

from Section 3 - Treatment of the Dementias

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 November 2025

Jalayne Arias ,

Megan S. Wright and

Ana Tyler

Edited by

Bruce L. Miller and

Bradley F. Boeve

Show author details

Bruce L. Miller: Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco
Bradley F. Boeve: Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Minnesota

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Diagnosing, treating, and caring for individuals with dementia-related syndroms raises unique legal and ethical questions. Individuals with dementia may be more likely to lack decision-making capacity. Additionally, along with their families, individuals with dementia will face complicated health care related decisions – complicated by limited therapy options. This chapter identifies key legal and ethical questions that come up in the clinical and non-clinical setting relevant to dementia-related syndromes.

Keywords

dementia capacity decision making research Alzheimer’s disease informed consent guardianship

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Behavioral Neurology of Dementia , pp. 466 - 482

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108985055.027 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arias, JJ, Flicker, LS. A matter of intent: a social obligation to improve criminal procedures for individuals with dementia. J Law Med Ethics. 2020 Jun 1;48(2):318–327.10.1177/1073110520935345CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Stites, SD, Rubright, JD, Karlawish, J. What features of stigma do the public most commonly attribute to Alzheimer’s disease dementia? Results of a survey of the U.S. general public Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Jul 1;14(7):925–932.10.1016/j.jalz.2018.01.006CrossRef Google Scholar

Arias, JJ, Karlawish, J. Confidentiality in preclinical Alzheimer disease studies: when research and medical records meet. Neurology. 2014 Feb 25;82(8):725–729.10.1212/WNL.0000000000000153CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Appelbaum, PS. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1834–1840.10.1056/NEJMcp074045CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Raab, EL. The parameters of informed consent. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2004 Dec;102:225–232.Google Scholar PubMed

American Medical Association. Informed Consent. Opinion 2.1.1 [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 12]. Available from: www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-consent Google Scholar

Fields, LM, Calvert, JD. Informed consent procedures with cognitively impaired patients: a review of ethics and best practices. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015;69(8):4624–71.10.1111/pcn.12289CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Arias, JJ. A time to step in: legal mechanisms for protecting those with declining capacity. Am J Law Med. 2013;39(1):134–159.10.1177/009885881303900103CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Appelbaum, PS, Grisso, T. Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(25):1635–1638.10.1056/NEJM198812223192504CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Glaser, J, Nouri, S, Fernandez, A, et al. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: an updated systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2020 Feb 1;40(2):119–143.10.1177/0272989X19896348CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wasserman, JA, Navin, MC. Capacity for preferences: respecting patients with compromised decision-making. Hastings Cent Rep. 2018;48(3):31–39.10.1002/hast.853CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Miller, LM, Lee, CS, Whitlatch, CJ, Lyons, KS. Involvement of hospitalized persons with dementia in everyday decisions: a dyadic study. Gerontologist. 2018 Jul;58(4):644–653.10.1093/geront/gnw265CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wright, MS. Resuscitating consent. Boston Coll Law Rev. 2022;63(4):887–956. [cited 2021 Oct 18]. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3915232 Google Scholar

Strumpf, NE, Evans, LK. Physical restraint of the hospitalized elderly: perceptions of patients and nurses. Nurs Res. 1988 May 1;37(3):132–137.10.1097/00006199-198805000-00002CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Peck, K., Law, R L. Alzheimer’s and the Law: Counseling Clients with Dementia and Their Families. American Bar Association, 2014.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.Google Scholar

Kopelman, LM. The best interests standard for incompetent or incapacitated persons of all ages. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(1):187–196.10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00123.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

American Medical Association. Decisions for adult patients who lack capacity. Opinion 2.1.2. | [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 12]. Available from: www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/decisions-adult-patients-who-lack-capacity Google Scholar

Dresser, R. Life, death, and incompetent patients: conceptual infirmities and hidden values in the law. Ariz LAW Rev. 1986;28(3):35.Google Scholar PubMed

Dresser, R. Precommitment: a misguided strategy for securing death with dignity. Tex Law Rev. 2003;27.Google Scholar

Wright, M. Dementia, autonomy, and supported healthcare decision making. Md Law Rev. 2019;79(257):257–324.Google Scholar

Wright, M. Dementia, cognitive transformation, and supported decision making. Am J Bioeth. 2020 Aug 2;20(8):88–90.10.1080/15265161.2020.1781959CrossRef Google Scholar

Dresser, R. Missing persons: legal perceptions of incompetent patients. Rutgers Law Rev. 1994;113.Google Scholar

Dresser, R. Advance directives and discrimination against people with dementia. Hastings Cent Rep. 2018;48(4):26–27.10.1002/hast.867CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Powell, T. Dementia Reimagined: Building a Life of Joy and Dignity from Beginning to End. Avery, 2020.Google Scholar

Somogyi-Zalud, E, Zhong, Z, Lynn, J, Hamel, MB. Elderly persons’ last six months of life: findings from the hospitalized elderly longitudinal project. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(S1):S131–S139.10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03122.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wright, MS. Equality of autonomy? Physician aid in dying and supported decision- making. Ariz Law Rev. 2021;63:41.Google Scholar

Kohn, NA. Legislating supported decision-making. Harvard J Legis. 2021;58(313) [cited 2021 May 12]; Available from: www.ssrn.com/abstract=3768684 Google Scholar

Kohn, NA, Blumenthal, JA, Campbell, AT. Supported decision-making: a viable alternative to guardianship? [Internet]. Penn State Law Rev. 2013;117(4). [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2161115 Google Scholar

Wright, MS. Reconsidering capacity assessments. 2021.Google Scholar

Wright, MS. Dementia, healthcare decision making, and disability law. J Law Med Ethics. 2019;47(S4):25–33.10.1177/1073110519898040CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Peterson, A, Karlawish, J, Largent, E. Supported decision making with people at the margins of autonomy. Am J Bioeth. 2020 Dec 29;1–21.10.1080/15265161.2020.1863507CrossRef Google Scholar

Diller, R. Legal capacity for all: including older persons in the shift from adult guardianship to supported decision-making. Fordham Urb Law J. 2016;43(3).Google Scholar

Cantor, NL. On avoiding deep dementia. Hastings Cent Rep. 2018 Jul;48(4):15–24.10.1002/hast.865CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Davis, DS. Advance directives and Alzheimer’s disease. J Law Med Ethics. 2018;46(3):744–748.10.1177/1073110518804235CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Menzel, PT, Chandler-Cramer, MC. Advance directives, dementia, and withholding food and water by mouth. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014 May;44(3):23–37.10.1002/hast.313CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Appel, J. The ethics of Nevada’s new law on dementia and advance medical directives. Opinion. [Internet]. The Nevada Independent. Novemeber 11, 2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-ethics-of-nevadas-new-law-on-dementia-and-advance-medical-directives Google Scholar

Dresser, R. The limited value of dementia-specific advance directives. Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Mar;51(2):4–5.10.1002/hast.1239CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pope, T. Avoiding late-stage dementia with advance directives for stopping eating and drinking [Internet]. KevinMD.com. 2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.kevinmd.com/blog/2019/10/avoiding-late-stage-dementia-with-advance-directives-for-stopping-eating-and-drinking.html Google Scholar

Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Revised Statute: Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/ors.aspx Google Scholar

Menzel, PT, Steinbock, B. Advance directives, dementia, and physician-assisted death. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(2):484–500.10.1111/jlme.12057CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bickenbach, JE. Disability and life-ending decisions. In Batten, MP, Rhodes, R, Silvers, A, eds. Physician-Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. London: Routledge, 1998; chapter 7.Google Scholar

World Health Organization. Palliative care [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.who.int/westernpacific/health-topics/palliative-care Google Scholar

Ahronheim, JC, Morrison, RS, Morris, J, Baskin, S, Meier, DE. Palliative care in advanced dementia: a randomized controlled trial and descriptive analysis. J Palliat Med. 2005;3(3).Google Scholar

Hughes, JC, Jolley, D, Jordan, A, Sampson, EL. Palliative care in dementia: issues and evidence. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2018 Jul;13(4):251–260.10.1192/apt.bp.106.003442CrossRef Google Scholar

Jack, CR Jr, Bennett, DA, Blennow, K, et al. NIA‐AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(4):535–562.10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.018CrossRef Google Scholar

Kopits, IM, Chen, C, Roberts, JS, Uhlmann, W, Green, RC. Willingness to pay for genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease: a measure of personal utility. Genet Test Mol Biomark. 2011 Dec;15(12):871–875.10.1089/gtmb.2011.0028CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Neumann, PJ, Hammitt, JK, Mueller, C, et al. Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2001 Oct;20(5):252–264.10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.252CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Prince, AER, Berkman, BE. When does an illness begin: genetic discrimination and disease manifestation. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(3):655–664.10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00696.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Disability – related resources. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 3]. Available from: www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination Google Scholar

Arias, JJ, Tyler, AM, Oster, BJ, Karlawish, J. The proactive patient: long-term care insurance discrimination risks of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers. J Law Med Ethics. 2018;46(2):485–498.10.1177/1073110518782955CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aducanumab (marketed as Aduhelm) Information. [Internet]. 2021 Jul 8 [cited 2021 Aug 3]; Available from: www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/aducanumab-marketed-aduhelm-information Google Scholar

Rabinovici, GD. Controversy and progress in Alzheimer’s disease – FDA approval of Aducanumab. N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 26;385(9):771–774.10.1056/NEJMp2111320CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Levine, C. HIPAA and talking with family caregivers: what does the law really say? AJN Am J Nurs. 2006 Aug;106(8):51–53.10.1097/00000446-200608000-00022CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Majumder, MA, Guerrini, CJ, Bollinger, JM, et al. Sharing data under the 21st Century Cures Act. Genet Med. 2017;19(12):1289–1294.10.1038/gim.2017.59CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Berger, JT, Rosner, F, Kark, P, Bennett, AJ. Reporting by physicians of impaired drivers and potentially impaired drivers. J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Sep;15(9):667–672.10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.04309.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Iverson, DJ, Gronseth, GS, Reger, MA, et al. Practice parameter update: evaluation and management of driving risk in dementia. Neurology. 2010;74(16):1316–1324.10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181da3b0fCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Black, BS, Rabins, PV, Sugarman, J, Karlawish, JH. Seeking assent and respecting dissent in dementia research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;18(1):77–85.10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181bd1de2CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bacon, D, Fisher, RS, Morris, JC, Rizzo, M, Spanaki, MV. American Academy of Neurology position statement on physician reporting of medical conditions that may affect driving competence. Neurology. 2007;68(15):1174–1177.10.1212/01.wnl.0000259514.85579.e0CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kapp, MB. The Law and Older Persons: Is Geriatric Jurisprudence Therapeutic? Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Schmidt, WC. Adult protective services and the therapeutic state. Law Psychol Rev. 1986;10:101–121.Google Scholar

Pennsylvania Adult Protective Services Act of Oct. 7, P.L.484, No. 70 Cl. 23 [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2010&sessInd=0&act=70 Google Scholar

Delaware Title 31. Welfare Agencies. Chapter 39. Adult Protective Services. 2010. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title31/c039/index.html Google Scholar

2017 California Code. Welfare and Institutions Code – WIC Division 9 – Public Social Services:: Part 3 – Aid and Medical Assistance:: Chapter 13 – Adult Protective Services [Internet]. Justia Law. 2017. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2017/code-wic/division-9/part-3/chapter-13/Google Scholar

American Bar Association. Elder abuse [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/resources/elder_abuse/Google Scholar

Ernst, JS, Smith, CA. Adult protective services clients confirmed for self-neglect: characteristics and service use. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2011 Oct;23(4):289–303.10.1080/08946566.2011.558800CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

National Adult Protective Services Association. What is neglect? [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.napsa-now.org/get-informed/what-is-neglect/Google Scholar

Reyes-Ortiz, CA, Burnett, J, Flores, DV, Halphen, JM, Dyer, CB. Medical implications of elder abuse: self-neglect. Clin Geriatr Med. 2014 Nov 1;30(4):807–823.10.1016/j.cger.2014.08.008CrossRef Google Scholar

Kim, SYH, Schrock, L, Wilson, RM, et al. An approach to evaluating therapeutic misconception. IRB. 2009;31(5):7–14.Google Scholar PubMed

U.S, Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR 46 [Internet]. HHS.gov. 2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html Google Scholar

Gupta, UC. Informed consent in clinical research: Revisiting few concepts and areas. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4(1):26–32.10.4103/2229-3485.106373CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Read the Belmont Report [Internet]. HHS.gov. 2018 [cited 2021 Jul 12]. Available from: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html Google Scholar

Grady, C, Cummings, SR, Rowbotham, MC, et al. Informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 2;376(9):856–867.10.1056/NEJMra1603773CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ahalt, C, Stijacic-Cenzer, I, Miller, BL, et al. Cognition and incarceration: cognitive impairment and its associated outcomes in older adults in jail. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Nov;66(11):2065–2071.10.1111/jgs.15521CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ahalt, C, Sudore, R, Bolano, M, Metzger, L, Williams, B. “Teach-to-goal” to better assess informed consent comprehension among incarcerated clinical research participants. AMA J Ethics. 2017 Sep 1;19(9):862–872.Google Scholar PubMed

Roberts, LW. Informed consent and the capacity for voluntarism. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 May 1;159(5):705–712.10.1176/appi.ajp.159.5.705CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Nelson, RM, Merz, JF. Voluntariness of consent for research: an empirical and conceptual review. Med Care. 2002;40(9):V69–80.10.1097/00005650-200209001-00010CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Agrawal, M. Voluntariness in clinical research at the end of life. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003 Apr;25(4):S25–S32.10.1016/S0885-3924(03)00057-5CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mergenthaler, JV, Chiong, W, Dohan, D, et al. A qualitative analysis of ethical perspectives on recruitment and consent for human intracranial electrophysiology studies. AJOB Neurosci. 2021 Jan 2;12(1):57–67.10.1080/21507740.2020.1866098CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki 2008 [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2021 Aug 9]. Available from: www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/doh-oct2008/Google Scholar

Grady, C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:855–862.10.1056/NEJMra1411250CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kim, SY, Kim, HM, Langa, K, et al. Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology. 2009 Jan 13;72(2):149–155.10.1212/01.wnl.0000339039.18931.a2CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wright, MS, Ulrich, MR, Fins, JJ. Guardianship and clinical research participation: the case of wards with disorders of consciousness. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(1):43–70.10.1353/ken.2017.0003CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wright, MS. Who decides? Legal changes to facilitate inclusion of participants with impaired cognition in research. In Cascio, MA, Racine, E, eds. Research Involving Participants with Cognitive Disability and Difference [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019; chapter 2. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/10.1093/oso/9780198824343.001.0001/oso-9780198824343-chapter-2 Google Scholar

Thorogood, A, Mäki-Petäjä-Leinonen, A, Brodaty, H, et al. Consent recommendations for research and international data sharing involving persons with dementia. Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Oct 1;14(10):1334–1343.10.1016/j.jalz.2018.05.011CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Slaughter, S, Cole, D, Jennings, E, Reimer, MA. Consent and assent to participate in research from people with dementia. Nurs Ethics. 2007 Jan;14(1):27–40.10.1177/0969733007071355CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Principles for the return of individual research results: ethical and societal considerations. In National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Botkin, JR, Mancher, M, Downey, AS, Busta, ER, eds. Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm. National Academies Press (US); 2018: p. 59. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525079/10.17226/25094CrossRef Google Scholar

National Academies. New report says individual research results should be shared with participants more often; recommends framework for decision-making. News release July 10, 2018. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.nationalacademies.org/news/2018/07/new-report-says-individual-research-results-should-be-shared-with-participants-more-often-recommends-framework-for-decision-making Google Scholar

Roberts, JS, Green, RC. Disclosing APOE genotype to individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. World Alzheimer Report 2021. 2021.Google Scholar

Guan, Y, Roter, DL, Erby, LH, et al. Disclosing genetic risk of Alzheimer’s disease to cognitively impaired patients and visit companions: findings from the REVEAL Study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 May;100(5):927–935.10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.005CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Harkins, K, Sankar, P, Sperling, R, et al. Development of a process to disclose amyloid imaging results to cognitively normal older adult research participants. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2015 Dec;7(1):26.10.1186/s13195-015-0112-7CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

REVEAL Study Group, Roberts, JS, Chen, CA, Uhlmann, WR, Green, RC. Effectiveness of a condensed protocol for disclosing APOE genotype and providing risk education for Alzheimer disease. Genet Med. 2012 Aug;14(8):742–748.10.1038/gim.2012.37CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Roberts, J, Christensen, K, Green, R. Using Alzheimer’s disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics. Clin Genet. 2011 Nov;80(5):407–414.10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01739.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Green, RC, Cupples, LA, Whitehouse, PJ, et al. Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 16;361(3):246–254.10.1056/NEJMoa0809578CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Resnik, DB. Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach. Account Res. 2011 Nov;18(6):382–397.10.1080/08989621.2011.622172CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Department of Health and Human Services. Attachment B: Return of Individual Research Results [Internet]. HHS.gov. 2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/recommendations/attachment-b-return-individual-research-results/index.html Google Scholar

Harkins, K, Sankar, P, Sperling, R, et al. Development of a process to disclose amyloid imaging results to cognitively normal older adult research participants. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2015;7(1):26.10.1186/s13195-015-0112-7CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cohen, AB, Wright, MS, Cooney, L, Fried, T. Guardianship and end-of-life decision making. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Oct 1;175(10):1687.10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3956CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act. Uniform Law Commission [Internet]. 2007. [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=0f25ccb8-43ce-4df5-a856-e6585698197a Google Scholar

Durocher, JM, Nicholas, A, Soliman, A, et al. Beyond guardianship: toward alternatives that promote greater self-determination. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability; 2018.Google Scholar

Kanter, AS. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its implications for the rights of elderly people under international law. Ga State Univ Law Rev. 2009;25:49.Google Scholar

Salzman, L. Rethinking guardianship (again): substituted decision making as a violation of the integration mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. U Colo L Rev. 2010;157(81):91.Google Scholar

Dinerstein, RD. Implementing legal capacity under article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the difficult road from guardianship to supported decision-making. Human Rights Brief. 2012;19:6.Google Scholar

Roca, R, Finucane, T. Physicians and guardianship: a brief commentary. Md J Contemp Leg Issues. 1996;7:239.Google Scholar

Falk, E, Landsverk, E, Mosqueda, L, et al. Geriatricians and psychologists: essential ingredients in the evaluation of elder abuse and neglect. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2010;22(3–4):281–290.10.1080/08946566.2010.490142CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Falk, E, Hoffman, N. The role of capacity assessments in elder abuse investigations and guardianships. Clin Geriatr Med. 2014 Nov;30(4):851–868.10.1016/j.cger.2014.08.009CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hurme, SB, Appelbaum, PS. Defining and assessing capacity to vote: the effect of mental impairment on the rights of voters. McGeorge Law Rev. 2007;38:84.Google Scholar

Liljegren, M, Naasan, G, Temlett, J, et al. Criminal behavior in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol. 2015 Mar;72(3):295–300.10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3781CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wall, B, Lee, R. Assessing competency to stand trial. Psychiatric Times. 2020;37(10) [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/assessing-competency-to-stand-trial Google Scholar

Mendez, MF. The unique predisposition to criminal violations in frontotemporal dementia. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law Online. 2010 Sep 1;38(3):318–323.Google Scholar PubMed

Williams, BA, Sudore, RL, Greifinger, R, Morrison, RS. Balancing punishment and compassion for seriously ill prisoners. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 19;155(2):122–126.10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00348CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Greene, M, Ahalt, C, Stijacic-Cenzer, I, Metzger, L, Williams, B. Older adults in jail: high rates and early onset of geriatric conditions. Health Justice. 2018 Feb 17;6:3.10.1186/s40352-018-0062-9CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mitchell, A, Williams, B. Compassionate release policy reform: physicians as advocates for human dignity. AMA J Ethics. 2017 Sep 1;19(9):854–861.Google Scholar PubMed

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.