The Boundaries of "Good Behavior" and Judicial Competence: Exploring Responsibilities and Authority Limitations of Cognitive Specialists in the Regulation of Incapacitated Judges.

Both law and medicine rely on self-regulation and codes of professionalism to ensure duties are performed in a competent, ethical manner. Unlike physicians, however, judges are lawyers themselves, so judicial oversight is also self-regulation. As previous literature has highlighted, the hesitation to report a cognitively-compromised judge has resulted in an "opensecret" amongst lawyers who face numerous conflicts of interest. Through a case study involving a senior judge with severe cognitive impairment, this article considers the unique ethical dilemmas that cognitive specialists may encounter when navigating duties to patient, society, and the medical profession, without clear legal guidance. Systemic self-regulatory inadequacies in the legal profession are addressed, as well as challenges that arise when trying to preserve the trust and dignity of an incapacitated patient who must fulfill special duties to society. Ultimately, because of their unique neurological expertise and impartial assessments, we submit that allowing cognitive specialists to submit their assessments to an internal judiciary board may act as an additional check and balance to ensure the fair and competent administration of justice.

Setting a Minimum Standard of Care in Clinical Trials: Human Rights and Bioethics as Complementary Frameworks.

For the past few decades, there has been intense debate in bioethics about the standard of care that should be provided in clinical trials conducted in developing countries. Some interpret the Declaration of Helsinki to mean that control groups should receive the best intervention available worldwide, while others interpret this and other international guidelines to mean the best local standard of care. Questions of justice are particularly relevant where limited resources mean that the local standard of care is no care at all. Introducing human rights law into this complex and longstanding debate adds a new and important perspective. Through non-derogable rights, including the core obligations of the right to health, human rights law can help set a minimum standard of care.

"She Just Doesn't Know Him Like We Do": Illuminating Complexities in Surrogate Decision Making.

When patients are not able to speak for themselves, surrogate decision makers are asked to guide treatment decisions and formulate a plan of care in accordance with what the patients would have wanted. This necessitates an exploration into the patients' views about life and how it should be lived, how the patients constructed their identity or life story, and their attitudes towards sickness and suffering. When an individual appoints a surrogate, such as a healthcare power of attorney, a common presumption is that this designation evinces merit. This obscures the possibility of multiple other considerations that influence individual choice. This article presents a clinical case in which the claim to know someone best created a controversy that brought treatment decisions to a standstill. Further, it illuminates how the question, "Given the current medical condition, what would this person want?" risks presuming that a singular, unambiguous preference exists and that one person can provide the answer. Clinical ethicists can play a vital role in situations when there is a dispute among a designated surrogate and family members over a patient's preference. By embracing the complexity of the desire to synthesize seemingly irreconcilable perspectives about identity, uncovering the reasons that underlie disagreement, and guiding inquiry in such a way that allows stakeholders to move beyond the conflict, clinical ethicists can facilitate decision making that honors the patient and may mitigate moral distress.