Authors
Jennifer Hawkins
Duke University
Abstract
Mackenzie Graham has made an important contribution to the literature on decisionmaking for patients with disorders of consciousness. He argues, and I agree, that decisions for unresponsive patients who are known to retain some degree of covert awareness ought to focus on current interests, since such patients likely retain the kinds of mental capacities that in ordinary life command our current respect and attention. If he is right, then it is not appropriate to make decisions for such patients by appealing to the values they had in the past, either the values expressed in an advance directive or the values recalled by a surrogate. There are two things I wish to add to the discussion. My first point is somewhat critical, for although I agree with his general conclusion about how, ideally, such decisions should be approached, I remain skeptical about whether his conclusion offers decisionmakers real practical help. The problem with these cases is that the evidence we have about the nature of the patient’s current interests is minimal or nonexistent. However—and this is important—Graham’s conclusion will be extremely relevant if in the future, our ability to communicate with such patients improves, as I hope it will. This leads to my second point. Graham’s conclusion illustrates a more general problem with our standard framework for decisionmaking for previously competent patients, a problem that has not been adequately recognized. So, in what follows, I explain the problem I see and offer some brief thoughts about solutions.
Keywords minimally conscious state  advance directives  decision-making capacity  medical decision-making  best interests
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0963180120000699
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Life's Dominion.Melissa Lane & Ronald Dworkin - 1994 - Philosophical Quarterly 44 (176):413.
Well-Being, Time, and Dementia.Jennifer Hawkins - 2014 - Ethics 124 (3):507-542.
Decision-Making Capacity.Jennifer Hawkins & Louis C. Charland - 2020 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Precedent Autonomy and Surrogate Decisionmaking After Severe Brain Injury.Mackenzie Graham - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (4):511-526.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Precedent Autonomy and Surrogate Decisionmaking After Severe Brain Injury.Mackenzie Graham - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (4):511-526.
Reassessing the Reliability of Advance Directives.Thomas May - 1997 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (3):325.
Deciding for the Incompetent.Eric Vogelstein - 2017 - In John K. Davis (ed.), Ethics at the End of Life: New Issues and Arguments. New York: Routledge. pp. 108-125.
The Medical Surrogate as Fiduciary Agent.Dana Howard - 2017 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 45 (3):402-420.
Coercing Future Freedom: Consent and Capacities for Autonomous Choice.M. Carmela Epright - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (4):799-806.
Interpreting Surrogate Consent Using Counterfactuals.Deborah Barnbaum - 1999 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (2):167–172.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-12-30

Total views
26 ( #407,727 of 2,427,710 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
26 ( #30,823 of 2,427,710 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes