This refers to an inability to give any reasons for their choice or ability only to give reasons which are internally contradictory. The ability ‘to give coherent reasons’ differs from the rationale ‘to reason’ because it focuses on the coherence of reasons given (or not given) and less on the reasoning process.
Inability example quote from court practice:
He was not able to give coherent reasons for wishing to live where he is
Intact ability example quote from court practice:
She is nevertheless able to describe, and genuinely holds, a range of rational reasons for her decision. When I say rational, I do not necessarily say they are good reasons, nor do I indicate whether I agree with her decision
Link to MCA criteria in court practice:
In court judgments, this rationale is usually linked to the MCA Criterion Use or Weigh. It was also sometimes linked to the MCA Criterion Understand, but we suggest that you link it to Use or Weigh as the links to Understand tend to be redundant due to hierarchichal relationship between rationales – see here and here for more information.
Link to impairments of mind or brain in court practice:
This rationale was most relevant to court judgments involving subjects with Mood Disorder, followed by Eating Disorder and Personality Disorder, although numbers were small.