Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Research ArticleRegular Article

Locating and Identifying Third-Party Decision-Makers

Jacob M. Appel
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online March 2022, 50 (1) 84-96; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.210049-21
Jacob M. Appel
Dr. Appel is Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Medical Education, Director of Ethics Education in Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
MD, JD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The use of third-party decision-makers such as proxies and surrogates for incapacitated patients has become widespread in the United States. More recently, lawmakers and ethicists have grappled with the challenge of rendering decisions for unbefriended individuals without an identified third-party decision-maker. Far less attention has been paid to the question of how to determine whether a patient is, in fact, unbefriended. Jurisdictions vary regarding how much effort must be invested by clinicians in locating an appropriate decision-maker and also regarding how certain must clinicians be of the identity of apparent decision-makers before acceding to their decisions. This article collects in tabular form the relevant state statutory language on this subject. A decision-relative, context-based approach for addressing these questions as they arise in clinical practice is then proposed, with application in several composite cases.

  • capacity
  • surrogate decision-making
  • unbefriended adults
  • health care proxies
  • standard of care

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

  • © 2022 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 50 (1)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 50, Issue 1
1 Mar 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Locating and Identifying Third-Party Decision-Makers
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Locating and Identifying Third-Party Decision-Makers
Jacob M. Appel
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 2022, 50 (1) 84-96; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.210049-21

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Locating and Identifying Third-Party Decision-Makers
Jacob M. Appel
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 2022, 50 (1) 84-96; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.210049-21
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Status of Current Law
    • A Decision-Relative Approach
    • Adding Context to the Approach
    • Cases Applications
    • Conclusion
    • Appendix
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • A Forensic Science-Based Model for Identifying and Mitigating Forensic Mental Health Expert Biases
  • Bias in Peer Review of Forensic Psychiatry Publications
  • Reconsidering the Relationship Between Criminal Insanity and Delusions
Show more Regular Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • capacity
  • surrogate decision-making
  • unbefriended adults
  • health care proxies
  • standard of care

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law