Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Risk-related standards of competence are a nonsense.Neil John Pickering, Giles Newton-Howes & Simon Walker - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (11):893-898.
    If a person is competent to consent to a treatment, is that person necessarily competent to refuse the very same treatment? Risk relativists answer no to this question. If the refusal of a treatment is risky, we may demand a higher level of decision-making capacity to choose this option. The position is known as asymmetry. Risk relativity rests on the possibility of setting variable levels of competence by reference to variable levels of risk. In an excellent 2016 article inJournal of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • The Debate over Risk‐related Standards of Competence.Ian Wilks - 1997 - Bioethics 11 (5):413-426.
    This discussion paper continues the debate over risk‐related standards of mental competence which appears in Bioethics 5. Dan Brock there defends an approach to mental competence in patients which defines it as being relative to differing standards, more or less rigorous depending on the degree of risk involved in proposed treatments. But Mark Wicclair raises a problem for this approach: if significantly different levels of risk attach, respectively, to accepting and refusing the same treatment, then it is possible, on this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Cake or death? Ending confusions about asymmetries between consent and refusal.Rob Lawlor - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (11):748-754.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Asymmetrical competence.Ian Wilks - 1999 - Bioethics 13 (2):154–159.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations