American Journal of Bioethics 20 (2):59-61 (2020)

Authors
Parker Crutchfield
Western Michigan University School Of Medicine
Scott Scheall
Arizona State University
Abstract
Berger (forthcoming) states that moral intimacy is important in applying the best interests standard. But what he calls moral intimacy requires that someone has overcome epistemic burdens needed to represent the patient. We argue elsewhere that good surrogate decision-making is first and foremost a matter of overcoming epistemic burdens, or those obstacles that stand in the way of a surrogate decision-maker knowing what a patient wants and how to satisfy those preferences. Berger’s notion of moral intimacy depends on epistemic intimacy: the fact that a surrogate's epistemic burdens with respect to the best interests of the incapacitated patient have been adequately surmounted, plus some other feature. Thus, where a particular patient-surrogate relationship fails to be morally intimate, what is lacking is either epistemic intimacy or this second feature. Furthermore, Berger uses the notion of moral intimacy as an explanans for the application of the best interests standard. We argue that the notions of epistemic intimacy and epistemic burdens not only help to explain the notion of moral intimacy, but also better explain the application of the best interests standard. Given the role of epistemic burdens and the epistemic intimacy that overcoming them enables, bioethicists and physicians should consider a surrogate’s epistemic standing relative to the patient’s best interests before pronouncing on the former’s ethical probity.
Keywords Surrogate decision-making  Biomedical ethics  Best interests  Substituted judgment
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1080/15265161.2019.1701737
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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

Epistemic Burdens and the Incentives of Surrogate Decision-Makers.Parker Crutchfield & Scott Scheall - 2019 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 22 (4):613-621.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Epistemic Burdens and the Incentives of Surrogate Decision-Makers.Parker Crutchfield & Scott Scheall - 2019 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 22 (4):613-621.
A Mixed Judgment Standard of Surrogate Decision Making.Nathan Stout - forthcoming - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.
Love as a Regulative Ideal in Surrogate Decision Making.Erica Lucast Stonestreet - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (5):523-542.
The Theory and Practice of Surrogate Decision‐Making.David Wendler - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (1):29-31.
The Medical Surrogate as Fiduciary Agent.Dana Howard - 2017 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 45 (3):402-420.
It's All Relative.Adira Hulkower & Lauren S. Flicker - 2018 - Hastings Center Report 48 (1):43-44.
In Re Edna MF: Case Law Confusion in Surrogate Decision Making.Robyn S. Shapiro - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (1):45-54.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-12-05

Total views
47 ( #197,068 of 2,324,555 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
32 ( #21,011 of 2,324,555 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes