Diverging medical and legal perceptions of the need for legal guardianship in people with dementia: A qualitative study

Abstract

BackgroundDementia is assumed to alter mental capacity, which may necessitate legal guardianship. However, only limited research exists on how dementia affects mental capacity, and most studies have focused solely on a medical perspective and concentrate on memory functions. The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate physicians' and legal experts' perceptions on a broad range of cognitive and neuropsychiatric domains potentially affecting mental capacity and the need for guardianship in people with dementia.MethodsPhysicians (N = 30) and legal experts (N = 20) participated in semi‐structured individual interviews. The data were analyzed by using content analysis and further semi‐quantified according to the cognitive and neuropsychiatric domains.ResultsPhysicians considered neuropsychiatric symptoms and executive dysfunction to be the most important deficits in the legal context, while legal experts highlighted episodic memory impairment and dyscalculia. Perceptions regarding the importance of several cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms varied between and within the professional groups.ConclusionsPhysicians and legal experts diverged in their perceptions of cognitive and neuropsychiatric domains affecting mental capacity and the need for guardianship. The evaluation and influence of medical evidence among legal experts heavily rely on subjective opinions. Given the substantial potential impact on patients' equal access to their rights, developing standardized guidelines is essential.