Cited by 56Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareHealth, Medicine and Society

Psychiatric Advance Directives Under the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: Why Advance Instructions Should Be Able to Override Current Preferences

Open access
Scholten, Matthé, Gieselmann, Astrid, Gather, Jakov, Vollmann, Jochen·2019·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents by means of which mental health service users can make known their preferences regarding treatment in a future mental health crisis. Many states with explicit legal provisions for PADs have ratified the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While important UN bodies consider PADs a useful tool to promote the autonomy of service users, we show that an authoritative interpretation of the CRPD by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has the adverse consequence of rendering PADs ineffective in situations where they could be of most use to service users. Based on two clinical vignettes, we demonstrate that reasonable clinical recommendations can be derived from a more realistic and flexible CRPD model. Concerns remain about the accountability of support persons who give effect to PADs. A model that combines supported decision making with competence assessment is able to address these concerns.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00631

Cites

56 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [39]Grisso T Appelbaum PS Assessing competence to consent to treatment. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press (1998).
  2. [50]Hindley G Stephenson LA Ruck Keene A Rifkin L Gergel T Owen G Why have I not been told about this? Wellcome Open Res (2019) 4(16): 1– 19. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14989.1 31080892 PMC6492047 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scholten, M., Gieselmann, A., Gather, J., & Vollmann, J.
Affiliations
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University Hospitals of the Ruhr-University of Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Scholten, Matthé
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2019-09-11
Volume
10
Pages
631-631
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2965991659
Cited by
56
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
psychiatric advance directives, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, supported decision-making, competency assessment, mental health service users, clinical guidelines

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