Hastings Center Report 48 (1):43-44 (2018)

Abstract
In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Daniel Brudney suggests that clinicians have an overly deferential attitude toward their patients’ surrogate decision-makers that is rooted in a wrongful investment of moral authority. He maintains that surrogate decision-makers have no moral right to decide for their loved ones and that their value in the decision-making process is limited to their knowledge of their loved one's preferences. If operationalized, Brudney's framework would ease the way for clinicians to remove a surrogate who cannot provide information relevant to the patient's preferences and to resort to a paternalistic model of decision-making. Brudney fails to consider that the value of the surrogate does not flow from the surrogate, but rather from the patient's moral claim to have decisions made for him or her by a loved one. This claim recognizes that surrogates have intrinsic value through their relationship to and knowledge of the patient. Bioethics consultation services can assist clinical teams in engaging with the human crowd that surrounds each patient and navigating conflicting values and goals. This relational approach embraces the “mire and blood” that is endemic to relationships and clinical encounters.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1002/hast.811
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,657
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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Theory and Practice of Surrogate Decision‐Making.David Wendler - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (1):29-31.
The Confucian Bioethics of Surrogate Decision Making: Its Communitarian Roots.Ruiping Fan - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (5):301-313.
Decisions and Authority.Gregory E. Kaebnick - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (1):2-2.
Physician-Patient Relations: No More Models.Greg Clarke, Robert T. Hall & Greg Rosencrance - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):16 – 19.
A Good Death.Tia Powell & Adira Hulkower - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (1):28-29.
Dementia and Dignity: Towards a New Method of Surrogate Decision Making.Elysa R. Koppelman - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (1):65 – 85.
Love as a Regulative Ideal in Surrogate Decision Making.Erica Lucast Stonestreet - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (5):523-542.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-02-19

Total views
10 ( #882,732 of 2,462,368 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,313 of 2,462,368 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes