The American Journal of Psychiatry
Journal Home Search Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe All APPI Journals Help Contact Us
 
Am J Psychiatry 164:1119-a-1120, July 2007
doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.164.7.1119-a
© 2007 American Psychiatric Association
Quicksearch
Advanced Search
Or Search All APPI Journals
This Article
* Full Text (PDF)
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* Email this article to a Colleague
* Similar articles in this journal
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Articles & Searches
* Download to citation manager
* reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by GEPPERT, C. M.
* Articles by ABBOTT, C.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* Articles by GEPPERT, C. M.
* Articles by ABBOTT, C.
Related Collections
* General Topics in Psychiatry

Letter to the Editor

Drs. Geppert and Abbott Reply

CYNTHIA M. GEPPERT, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., and CHRISTOPHER ABBOTT, M.D.
Albuquerque, N.M.

To The Editor: We appreciate Dr. Balhara’s thought-provoking questions regarding our case conference. In our article, we attempted to illustrate the three domains of an informed consent evaluation: information including the risks and benefits of a proposed intervention, decisional capacity, and capacity for voluntarism. Information and decisional capacity have traditionally formed the cornerstone of most informed consent evaluations. In the case presented in our article, we described a patient who had impaired capacity for voluntarism and subsequently was not able to provide consent for the particular intervention "in accordance with [his] authentic sense of what [was] best in light of [his] situation, values, and prior history" (p. 412). We suggested specific interventions that could quickly and effectively restore his capacity for voluntarism. Dr. Balhara is correct in that a surrogate decision maker would have been appropriate only if the patient had been considered incapable of making a decision, which was the situation prior to our involvement. While optimistic that our approach would have the desired effect, we also recommended contingency planning via a surrogate decision maker "in the event that these factors were unsuccessful in restoring capacity for informed consent" (p. 410). Fortunately, benign and noninvasive recommendations dramatically and effectively restored this patient’s capacity for voluntarism and hence informed consent.





This Article
* Full Text (PDF)
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* Email this article to a Colleague
* Similar articles in this journal
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Articles & Searches
* Download to citation manager
* reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by GEPPERT, C. M.
* Articles by ABBOTT, C.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* Articles by GEPPERT, C. M.
* Articles by ABBOTT, C.
Related Collections
* General Topics in Psychiatry


Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2007 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us

American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. American Psychiatric Association
1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 * 800-368-5777 * appi at psych.org