David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):367-386 (2004)
Standard views on surrogate decision making present alternative ideal models of what ideal surrogates should consider in rendering a decision. They do not, however, explain the physician''s responsibility to a patient who lacks decisional capacity or how a physician should regard surrogates and surrogate decisions. The authors argue that it is critical to recognize the moral difference between a patient''s decisions and a surrogate''s and the professional responsibilities implied by that distinction. In every case involving a patient who lacks decisional capacity, physicians and the treatment team have to make judgments about the appropriateness of both the surrogate and the surrogate''s decision. They have to assess the surrogate''s decisional capacity and attitude toward the patient as well as the reasons that support the surrogate''s decision. This paper provides a model for acceptable surrogate decisions and a standard for blocking inappropriate surrogates. Only decisions based on widely shared reasons are allowable for surrogate refusal of highly beneficial treatment.
|Keywords||assessment autonomy best interest decisional capacity decisions fiduciary responsibility professional responsibility reasonable person reasons substituted judgment surrogate|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mike Collins (2009). Consent for Organ Retrieval Cannot Be Presumed. HEC Forum 21 (1):71-106.
Rosamond Rhodes (2005). Rethinking Research Ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):7 – 28.
Robert M. Sade (2011). The Locus of Decision Making for Severely Impaired Newborn Infants. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (2):39 - 40.
Similar books and articles
Jennifer Damelio & Kelly Sorensen (2008). Enhancing Autonomy in Paid Surrogacy. Bioethics 22 (5):269–277.
Susan R. Martyn (2009). Substituted Judgment, Best Interests, and the Need for Best Respect. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 3 (02):195-.
Kristine Bærøe (2010). Patient Autonomy, Assessment of Competence and Surrogate Decision-Making: A Call for Reasonableness in Deciding for Others. Bioethics 24 (2):87-95.
Paul B. Hofmann (2004). Possible Limits to the Surrogate's Role: When a Patient Lacks Decisionmaking Capacity, Is the Surrogate's Role Absolute? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (01):96-96.
Elie Spitz (1996). "Through Her I Too Shall Bear a Child": Birth Surrogates in Jewish Law. Journal of Religious Ethics 24 (1):65 - 97.
Mats Johansson & Linus Broström (2011). Counterfactual Reasoning in Surrogate Decision Making – Another Look. Bioethics 25 (5):244-249.
Mats Johansson & Linus Broström (2008). Turning Failures Into Successes: A Methodological Shortcoming in Empirical Research on Surrogate Accuracy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):17-26.
Linus Broström, The Substituted Judgment Standard. Studies on the Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making.
Elysa R. Koppelman (2002). Dementia and Dignity: Towards a New Method of Surrogate Decision Making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (1):65 – 85.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #97,310 of 1,699,833 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #161,079 of 1,699,833 )
How can I increase my downloads?