Online research in philosophy

Physicians and families need to interact more meaningfully to clarify the values and preferences at stake in advance care planning. The current use of advance directives fails to respect patient autonomy. This paper proposes using the family covenant as a preventive ethics process designed to improve end-of-life planning by incorporating other family members—as agreed to by the patient and those family members—into the medical care dialogue. The family covenant formulates advance directives in conversation with family members and with the assistance of a physician, thereby making advance directives more acceptable to the family, and more intelligible to other physicians. It adds the moral force of a promise to the obligation of respecting a patient’s preferences about end-of-life care. These negotiations between patient, family, and physician, from early planning phases through implementation, should greatly reduce the incidence of family disagreements on what the patient would have wanted. The family covenant ensures advance directive discussions within the family, promotes and respects the autonomy of other family members, and might even spur others in the family to complete advance directives through additional covenants. The family covenant holds the potential to transform moral quagmires into meaningful moral conversation. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:1155–1158, 2003.

In the face of mounting criticism against advance directives, we describe how a novel, computer-based decision aid addresses some of these important concerns. This decision aid, Making Your Wishes Known: Planning Your Medical Future , translates an individual's values and goals into a meaningful advance directive that explicitly reflects their healthcare wishes and outlines a plan for how they wish to be treated. It does this by (1) educating users about advance care planning; (2) helping individuals identify, clarify, and prioritize factors that influence their decision-making about future medical conditions; (3) explaining common end-of-life medical conditions and life-sustaining treatment; (4) helping users articulate a coherent set of wishes with regard to advance care planning—in the form of an advance directive readily interpretable by physicians; and (5) helping individuals both choose a spokesperson, and prepare to engage family, friends, and health care providers in discussions about advance care planning.

This article evaluates the potential role of advance directives outside of their original North American context. In order to do this, the article first analyses the historical process which has promoted advance directives in recent years. Next, it brings to light certain presuppositions which have given them force: atomistic individualism, contractualism, consumerism and entrepreneurialism, pluralism, proceduralism, and American moralism. The article next studies certain European cultural peculiarities which could affect advance directives: the importance of virtue versus rights, stoicism versus consumerist utilitarianism, rationalism versus empiricism, statism versus citizens' initiative, and justice versus autonomy.The article concludes by recognising that autonomy has a transcultural value, although it must be balanced with other principles. Advance Directives can have a function in certain cases. But it does not seem adequate to delegate to advance directives more and more medical decisions, and to make them more binding everyday. It is indispensable to develop other decision-making criteria.

The personal identity problem expresses the worry that due to disrupted psychological continuity, one person’s advance directive could be used to determine the care of a different person . Even ethicists, who strongly question the possibility of the scenario depicted by the proponents of the personal identity problem, often consider it to be a very potent objection to the use of advance directives. Aiming to question this assumption, I, in this paper, discuss the personal identity problem’s relevance to the moral force of advance directives. By putting the personal identity argument in relation to two different normative frameworks, I aim to show that whether or not the personal identity problem is relevant to the moral force of advance directives, and further, in what way it is relevant, depends entirely on what normative reasons we have for respecting advance directives in the first place.

Advance patient directives are various forms of anticipatory medical directives made by competent individuals for the eventuality of future incompetence. They are therefore appropriate instruments for competent patients in the early stage of Alzheimer's disease to document their self-determined will in the advanced stages of dementia. Theoretical objections have been expressed against the concept of advance patient directives (problems of authenticity and identity) which, however, cannot negate the fundamental moral authority of advance patient directives. Therefore, patients, family members, and physicians should make use of the appropriate form of advance directive as part of common treatment and care planning. Advance directives, when utilized intelligently, represent appropriate instruments for shared decision-making by patient, family members and physician. They should be utilized to a greater extent, particularly for the treatment planning of demented patients.

Advance directives typically have two defects. First, most advance directives fail to enable people to effectively avoid unwanted medical intervention. Second, most of them have the potential of ending your life in ways you never intended, years before you had to die.

A challenge has recently been levelled against the legal and/or moral legitimacy of some advance directives. It has been argued that in certain cases an advance directive carries no weight in a decision on whether to withhold treatment, since the individual in the debilitating state is not the same person as the person who created the advance directive. In the first section of this paper, I examine two formulations of the argument against the moral legitimacy of the advance directives under review. The second section reviews, and criticizes, an objection to such arguments. In the penultimate section, possible models supporting the viability of the advance directives are considered. The final section makes good on an obligation incurred by the title of the paper.

Defenders of patient autonomy have successfully supported the legal adoption of advance directives. More recently, some defenders of patient autonomy have also supported the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia. This paper explores the wisdom of combining both practices. If euthanasia were to become legal, should it be permitted by advance directives? The paper juxtaposes the most significant doubts about advance directives, with the most significant doubts about euthanasia. It argues that the doubts together raise more concern about the combined practices than about either euthanasia or advance directives separately. Not all cases of voluntary euthanasia by advance directive are equally problematic, however. Advance directives can help in the defense of euthanasia for patients who make the request in advance and reaffirm it under circumstances of severe suffering. Keywords: advance directives, durable power of attorney, euthanasia, living will, patient interests CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?