This page was translated automatically from Turkish. Read the original

This page is an AI-assisted Turkish summary of the study presented at the 26th World Congress of Psychiatry. The study belongs to the presenting authors; please refer to the original source when citing it.

EV0605

Capacity to consent to medical treatment: a comparative analysis of different legal frameworks

COMPETENCE TO CONSENT MEDICAL TREATMENTS

Legal criteria and methods for assessing capacity to consent to medical treatment vary considerably between countries, with some using validated instruments and others relying solely on clinical judgment.

The aim of this study was to compare the legal criteria used in different countries to assess capacity to consent to medical treatment (competence to consent). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus, as well as on websites containing relevant legislation. Information was extracted from sources selected using inclusion and exclusion criteria; articles defining the legal standards required for assessing capacity to consent were included. The comparison covered the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Argentina. The respective legal frameworks were the Mental Capacity Act and Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines; Code de la Santé Publique, Article L1111-4; Law No. 219 of 22 December 2017 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Ley 41/2002; and Ley de Derechos del Paciente 26.529 and Article 59 of the Civil and Commercial Code. In the United Kingdom, capacity is always presumed, assessments are time- and decision-specific, and a finding of incapacity requires that the person be unable to understand, retain, use or weigh relevant information, or communicate their decision. In France, the use of validated instruments is optional and supplementary, with clinical judgment taking precedence; in an emergency, the patient's designated trusted person (personne de confiance), a family member, or someone close to the patient may be consulted. In Italy, capacity is assessed primarily on the basis of clinical judgment and legal standards, with standardized tests such as the MacCAT-T available as supplementary tools. In Spain, clinical judgment is combined with validated general and specific instruments and scales, whereas in Argentina, no formal instruments or tests are used to assess capacity, and clinical judgment alone is relied upon. The authors conclude that there are substantial differences in the legal standards for assessing capacity to consent between countries with different legal frameworks.

All WCP 2026 summaries