CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 595Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics in Clinical Research

The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study. III: Abilities of patients to consent to psychiatric and medical treatments.

Grisso, Thomas, Appelbaum, Paul S.·1995·Law and Human Behavior
DOI 10.1007/bf01499323
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf01499323

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the MacArthur Treatment Competence Study, patients with mental illness as a group showed more deficits in understanding, appreciation and reasoning than medically ill patients and non-ill controls.

    “on the measures of understanding, appreciation, and reasoning, as a group, patients with mental illness more often manifested deficits in performance than did medically ill patients and their non-ill control”

    From Is the exclusion of psychiatric patients from access to physician-assisted suicide discriminatory? (2019) · cites this paper as [7]

  • Mental illness often negatively affects a person's decision-making capacity.

    “The main empirical premise upon which this argument is based -i.e. that decision-making capacity is often negatively affected by mental illness -is fairly uncontroversial, as it has been corroborated in a number of empirical studies [5][6][7][8].”

    From Is the exclusion of psychiatric patients from access to physician-assisted suicide discriminatory? (2019) · cites this paper as [7]

  • Mental illness by itself is insufficient to establish that a patient is incompetent.

    “Studies that have been conducted into mental illness and decision-making capacity have shown that mental illness is insufficient to demonstrate incompetency [7].”

    From Is the exclusion of psychiatric patients from access to physician-assisted suicide discriminatory? (2019) · cites this paper as [7]

  • MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools exist for consenting to treatment, to research participation and to criminal adjudication, and assess decision-making capacity across understanding, reasoning, appreciation and expressing a choice.

    “Commercially available tools have been developed for consenting to treatment (MacCAT-T), consenting to participation in clinical research (Mac-CAT-CR), and participating in criminal adjudication (MacCAT-CA).”

    From Is the exclusion of psychiatric patients from access to physician-assisted suicide discriminatory? (2019) · cites this paper as [7]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
ORCID
Venue
Law and Human Behavior
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1995-04
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
149-174
ISSN
  • 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/bf01499323
OpenAlex
W2063485517
Cited by
595
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 19
FWCI
24.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
informed consent, psychiatric treatment, medical treatment, patient decision-making, mental illness
MeSH terms
Cognition, Communication, Decision Making, Depressive Disorder, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Heart Diseases, Humans, Informed Consent, Institutionalization, Jurisprudence, Methods, Patients, Psychiatry, Reference Standards, Research Design, Schizophrenia, United States, Treatment Refusal, Mental Competency, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Comprehension, Control Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review