Guardianship: A medicolegal review for clinicians
- PMID: 35420158
- PMCID: PMC9790446
- DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17797
Guardianship: A medicolegal review for clinicians
Abstract
Guardianship may pose an ethical dilemma for physicians, who must balance protecting vulnerable patients from potential safety concerns with respecting their autonomy. Older adults with dementia are particularly susceptible to loss of independence and the ability to participate in medical decision making. To have the capacity for medical decision making, individuals must understand relevant information, appreciate their circumstances, demonstrate reasoning, and express a consistent choice free from coercion. Although capacity assessments are usually task-specific, geriatricians and other specialists may be asked to comment on capacity more globally. These determinations may be used to support a Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian of a Legally Incapacitated Adult, the legal process of pursuing guardianship in probate court. Assigned guardians may be known to the incapacitated individual (e.g., a family member or friend) or may be professional guardians with no prior relationship to the ward. Guardians are encouraged to use substituted decision-making, taking into account the ward's previously expressed values and preferences. Although a number of viable alternatives to guardianship exist, numerous systemic barriers may prevent these from being fully explored. The ongoing need for guardianship should be periodically revisited and reassessed. Data about guardians and wards is shockingly sparse, as there are no centralized databases. Laws and regulations for guardianships vary significantly between states. Physicians can serve as important allies and advocates for patients with cognitive impairment at risk of incapacity, can help preserve their autonomy for as long as possible, and ensure appropriate protections are in place if the patient does lose their decision-making ability.
Keywords: advocacy; capacity; dementia; guardianship.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Geriatrics Society.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures

Comment in
-
Context, humility, and caution in guardianship determination.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Nov;70(11):3058-3060. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18067. Epub 2022 Oct 25. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022. PMID: 36282950 No abstract available.
References
-
- Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695‐699. - PubMed
-
- Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method: a new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941‐948. - PubMed
-
- Morphew J, Fitzgerald JT, Zietlow KE, Vitale C. Attitudes among medical residents caring for patients requiring a court‐appointed guardian. Paper presented at: American Geriatrics Society Annual Scientific Meeting 2021; Virtual.
-
- Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients' capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(25):1635‐1638. - PubMed
-
- Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Hill‐Fotouhi C. The MacCAT‐T: a clinical tool to assess patients' capacities to make treatment decisions. Psychiatr Serv. 1997;48(11):1415‐1419. - PubMed