The boundaries of “good behavior” and judicial competence: exploring responsibilities and authority limitations of cognitive specialists in the regulation of incapacitated judges

Brandon Hamm, Bryn Sue Esplin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)514-520
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
Volume46
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Lawyers
Mental Competency
Conflict of Interest
Medical Societies
Social Justice
Medicine
Physicians
Self-Control
Professionalism
Cognitive Dysfunction

Cite this

@article{1c3b61898391436db472d0fdde5673a5,
title = "The boundaries of “good behavior” and judicial competence: exploring responsibilities and authority limitations of cognitive specialists in the regulation of incapacitated judges",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Brandon Hamm and Esplin, {Bryn Sue}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1073110518782959",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "514--520",
journal = "Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics",
issn = "1073-1105",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The boundaries of “good behavior” and judicial competence

T2 - exploring responsibilities and authority limitations of cognitive specialists in the regulation of incapacitated judges

AU - Hamm, Brandon

AU - Esplin, Bryn Sue

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055940890&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1073110518782959

DO - 10.1177/1073110518782959

M3 - Article

C2 - 30147004

AN - SCOPUS:85055940890

VL - 46

SP - 514

EP - 520

JO - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

JF - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

SN - 1073-1105

IS - 2

ER -