Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Dependent Elderly: Legal Rights and Responsibilities in Agent Custody

  • Chapter
Ethical Dimensions of Geriatric Care

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 25))

  • 207 Accesses

Abstract

Individuals who have reached the age of majority are permitted a wide range of choice in American society. They may choose where or whether to work, with whom to associate, and how to pattern and place their lives. These decisions may be wise or foolish; they may enhance the quality of life or put existence itself at risk. These individual decisions and actions may encroach upon the lives of others, in violation of civil or criminal law, and thus be subject to fine or punishment. They may fall within the standard for civil commitment — exhibiting a danger to self or others — and invite involuntary restraint. Absent such circumstances, however, individual choice is largely unregulated and unsupervised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Abernethy, V.: 1984, ‘Compassion, Control and Decisions About Competency’, American Journal of Psychiatry 141, 53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander, G.: 1980, ‘Remaining Responsible: On Control of One’s Health Needs in Aging’, Santa Clara Law Review 20, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alexander, G.: 1977, ‘Aging in America — IV; Who Benefits from Conservatorship?’, Trial (May) 30.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Annas, G. and Glantz, L.: 1985, ‘Withholding and Withdrawing of Life-Sustaining Treatment for Elderly Incompetent Patients: A Review of Court Decisions and Legislative Approaches’, prepared for Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Appelbaum, P. and Roth, L.: 1981, ‘Clinical Issues in the Assessment of Competency’, American Journal of Psychiatry 138, 1463.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson, G.: 1980, ‘Towards a Due Process Perspective in Conservatorship Proceedings for the Aged’, Journal of Family Law 18, 819.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Avorn, J.: 1982, ‘Induced Disability in Nursing Home Patients: A Controlled Trial’, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 30, 397.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bell, W., Schmidt, W., and Miller, K.: 1981, ‘Public Guardianship and the Elderly: Findings from a National Study’, The Gerontologist 21, 194.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Campe, C.: 1985, ‘Conservatorships: Their Application to the Hospitalized Elderly in New York’, unpublished paper.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, E.: 1985, ‘Caring for the Mentally Ill Elderly Without De Facto Commitments to Nursing Homes: The Right to the Least Restrictive Environment’, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Workshop on Surrogate Decisionmaking.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Childress, J.: 1982, Who Should Decide? Paternalism in Health Care, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Drane, J.: 1984, ‘Competency to Give Informed Consent: A Model for Making Clinical Assessments’, Journal of the American Medical Association 252, 925.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Drane, J.: 1985, ‘The Many Faces of Competency’, Hastings Center Report 15, 17.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dubler, N.: 1981, ‘Assumptions in the Law About the Process of Aging’, unpublished paper.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Freedman, B.: 1981, ‘Competence, Marginal and Otherwise’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 4, 52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goffman, I.: 1961, Asylums, Anchor Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Green, M.: 1940, ‘Public Policies Underlying the Law of Mental Incompetency’, Michigan Law Review 38, 1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hamerman, D., Dubler, N., Kennedy, G., and Masdeau, J.: 1986, ‘Decision Making in Response to an Elderly Woman With Dementia Who Refused Surgical Repair of Her Fractured Hip’, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 34, 234.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Holder, A.: 1985, Legal Issues in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Katz, K.: 1980, ‘Elder Abuse’, Journal of Family Law 18, 695.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Legislative Approaches to the Problems of the Elderly: A Handbook of Model State Statutes: 1978, Sponsored by The National Council of Senior Citizens, Published by Legal Research and Services for the Elderly, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Meisel, A. and Roth, L. 1983, ‘Toward an Informed Discussion of Informed Consent: A Review and Critique of the Empirical Studies’, Arizona Law Review 25, 265.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Melnick, V., Dubler, N., Weisbard, A., and Butler, R.: 1984, ‘Clinical Research in Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type: Suggested Guidelines Addressing the Legal and Ethical Issues’, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 32, 531.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller, L.: 1980, ‘Informed Consent: I, II, III, IV’, Journal of the American Medical Association 244, 2100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitchell, A.: 1978, ‘Involuntary Guardianship for Incompetents: A Strategy for Legal Services Advocates’, Clearinghouse Review (December 1977), 451.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell, A.: The Objects of Our Wisdom and Our Coercion: Involuntary Guardianship for Incompetents’, Southern California Law Review 52, 1405.

    Google Scholar 

  27. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1977, ‘Appendix to Report and Recommendations: Research Involving Children’, Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication No. (05) 77–0005.

    Google Scholar 

  28. O’Malley, T., Everitt, D., O’Malley, H., and Campion, E.: 1983, ‘Identifying and Preventing Family-Mediated Abuse and Neglect of Elderly Persons’, Annals of Internal Medicine 98, 998.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Peters, R., Schmidt, W., and Miller, K.: 1985, ‘Guardianship of the Elderly in Tallahassee, Florida’, The Gerontologist 25, 532.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1983, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment, Concern for Dying edition, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  31. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1982, Making Health Care Decisions, Concern for Dying edition, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Regan, J.: 1981, ‘Protecting the Elderly: The New Paternalism’, Hastings Law Journal 32, 111.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Roth, L. et al: 1977, ‘Tests of Competency to Consent to Treatment’, American Journal of Psychiatry 134, 279.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwartz, A. and Hirsh, H.: 1984 ‘Child Abuse and Neglect: A Survey of the Law’ in Carmi, A., Zimrin, H. (eds.), Child Abuse, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sherman, R.: 1980, ‘Guardianship: Time for a Reassessment’, Fordham Law Review 49, 350.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Solender, E.: 1976, The Guardian Ad Litem: A Valuable Representative or an Illusory Safeguard?’, Texas Tech Law Review 7, 619.

    Google Scholar 

  37. United States Senate Special Committee on Aging, 95th Congress, 1st Session: 1977, ‘Protective Services for the Elderly — A Working Paper’.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979, G. & C. Merriam, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zuckerman, C.: 1984, unpublished communication. “The Patient’s’ Spoken Choice’ is defined as an articulated preference but one which, due to the patient’s cognitive impairment, it would be inaccurate to term a reasoned decision.”

    Google Scholar 

  40. New York Law Section___, A. 1240/S.5677 (1986) (awaiting Governor’s signature).

    Google Scholar 

  41. New York Mental Hygiene Law, Section 77.01 (McKinney 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  42. New York Mental Hygiene Law, Section 77.21 (McKinney 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F. 2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P. 2d 1 (Cal. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Covington v. Harris, 419 F. 2d 617 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Donaldson v. O’Connor, 422 U.S. 563 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  47. In the Matter of Quinlan, 355 A. 2d 647 (N.J. 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  48. In the Matter of Spring, 405 N.E. 2d 115 (Mass. 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lake v. Cameron, 364 F. 2d 657 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Matter of Dinnerstein, 380 N.E. 2d 134 (Mass. 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Matter of Storar, In the Matter of Phillip Eichner, 52 N.Y. 2d 363 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rouse v. Cameron, 373 F. 2d 451 (1966), affirmed on rehearing 387 F. 2d 241 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schloendorffv. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E. 2d 417 (Mass. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F. Supp. 387 (Ala. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA

    Nancy Neveloff Dubler

Authors
  1. Nancy Neveloff Dubler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Humanistic Studies in Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA

    Stuart F. Spicker Ph.D. (Professor of Community Medicine and Health Care (philosophy) (Professor of Community Medicine and Health Care (philosophy)

  2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri at Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, USA

    Stanley R. Ingman Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Behavioral Science (sociology) (Associate Professor of Behavioral Science (sociology)

  3. School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA

    Ian R. Lawson M.D., F.R.C.P (Edin.), F.A.C.P. (Clinical Professor of Community Medicine and Health Care (geriatric medicine) (Clinical Professor of Community Medicine and Health Care (geriatric medicine)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 D. Reidel Publishing Company

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dubler, N.N. (1987). The Dependent Elderly: Legal Rights and Responsibilities in Agent Custody. In: Spicker, S.F., Ingman, S.R., Lawson, I.R. (eds) Ethical Dimensions of Geriatric Care. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3391-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3391-0_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8020-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3391-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation