Abstract
Patient preference predictors (PPPs) take us from known demographic descriptors to unknown facts about patients’ preferences over treatment options. However, the use of PPPs to make treatment decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients faces an apparent normative problem: their use in certain contexts appears to involve treating patients paternalistically. In this paper, I consider whether PPPs can find a home in the context of military medicine. On the assumptions that military organizations sometimes permissibly treat their members paternalistically, I identify the specific circumstances in which PPPs can play a role in making treatment decisions on behalf of patients. I show that these circumstances are not only the natural home of PPPs, PPPs – or something very much like them – are precisely the sort of device required for it to be permissible to (say) paternalistically override a patient’s expressed preferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brock, D.W. 2014. Reflections on the patient preference predictor proposal. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 153–160.
Broström, L., M. Johansson, and M.K. Nielsen. 2007. “What the patient would have decided”: A fundamental problem with the substituted judgment standard. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10: 265.
Buchak, L. 2014. Belief, credence, norms. Philosophical Studies 169: 285–311.
Buchanan, A., and D.W. Brock. 1990. Deciding for others. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Collopy, B.J. 1999. The moral underpinning of the proxy-provider relationship: Issues of trust and distrust. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 27 (1): 37–46.
Department of Defense Joint Trauma System. Committee on Tactical Combat Care. TCC Guidelines, available: https://www.deployedmedicine.com/market/11/content/40. Accessed 21 July 2019.
Dresser, R. 2014. Law, ethics, and the patient preference predictor. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 178–186.
John, S.D. 2014. Patient preference predictors, apt categorization, and respect for autonomy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 169–177.
———. 2018. Messy autonomy: Commentary on patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (12): 864.
Levi, B.H., and M.J. Green. 2010. Too soon to give up: Re-examining the value of advance directives. The American Journal of Bioethics 10: 3–22.
Mass. 1945. Smith V. Rapid Transit. Inc. 317 Mass. 469, 58 N.E. 2nd 754.
Miles, S.H., R. Koepp, and E.P. Weber. 1996. Advance end-of-life treatment planning. A research review. Archives of Internal Medicine 156 (10): 1062–1068.
Pearn, J. 2000. Medical ethics surveillance in the armed forces. Military Medicine 165: 351–354.
Rao, Jaya K., Lynda A. Anderson, Feng-Chang Lin, and Jeffrey P. Laux. 2014 Jan. Completion of advance directives among U.S. consumers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 46 (1): 65–70.
Rid, A., and D. Wendler. 2014a. Treatment decision making for incapacitated patients: Is development and use of a patient preference predictor feasible? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 130–152.
———. 2014b. Use of a patient preference predictor to help make medical decisions for incapacitated patients. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 104–129.
Seckler, A.B., D.E. Meier, M. Mulvihill, and B.E. Paris. 1991. Substituted judgment: How accurate are proxy predictions? Annals of Internal Medicine 115: 92–98.
Schauer, F. 2006. Profiles, probabilities, stereotypes. Belknap Press.
Sharadin, Nathaniel. 2018. Patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence. Journal of Medical Ethics 44: 857–862.
———. 2019. Should aggregate patient preference data be used to make decisions on behalf of unrepresented patients? AMA Journal of Ethics.
Shiffrin, Seana Valentine. 2000. Paternalism, unconscionability doctrine, and accommodation. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29 (3): 205–250.
Smucker, W.D., R.M. Houts, J.H. Danks, et al. 2000. Modal preferences predict elderly patients’ life-sustaining treatment choices as well as patients’ chosen surrogates do. Medical Decision Making 20: 271–280.
Shalowitz, D.I., E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Wendler. 2006. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine 166: 493–497.
Tribe, L.H. 1971. Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review 84: 1329–1393.
Wolfendale, J., and S. Clarke. 2008. Paternalism, consent, and the use of experimental drugs in the military. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (4): 337–355.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sharadin, N. (2022). Patient Preference Predictors and Paternalism in Military Medicine. In: Messelken, D., Winkler, D. (eds) Health Care in Contexts of Risk, Uncertainty, and Hybridity. Military and Humanitarian Health Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80443-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80443-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80442-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80443-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)