Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 47 (2):293-310 (2022)

Alex John London
Carnegie Mellon University
Respect for patient autonomy can apply at two levels: ensuring that patient care reflects their considered values and wishes and honoring patient preferences about how to make momentous decisions. Caregivers who seek to respect patient autonomy in the context of some end-of-life decisions face a dilemma. Because these decisions are fraught, patients may prefer to approach them sequentially, only making decisions at the time they arise. However, respecting patients’ preferences for a sequential approach can increase the likelihood that surrogates and care teams wind up in situations in which they lack information needed to ensure patients receive care that conforms to their considered values after they are no longer competent to make decisions for themselves. Sequential decision-making can thus conflict with the goal of ensuring care reflects the wishes of patients. After illustrating how this dilemma can arise in the use of life-sustaining “bridge” technologies, we argue that care teams may be warranted in requiring patients to articulate their wishes in an advance care plan before treatment begins. In some cases, care teams may even be permitted to refuse to undertake certain courses of care, unless patients articulate their wishes in an advance care plan.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jmp/jhab050
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: 70,307
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

Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.John Von Neumann & Oskar Morgenstern - 1944 - Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Shared Decision-Making and Patient Autonomy.Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.
Getting Obligations Right: Autonomy and Shared Decision Making.Jonathan Lewis - 2020 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 37 (1):118-140.
An Additive Model for Sequential Decision Making.James C. Shanteau - 1970 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 85 (2):181.
A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions Over Multiple Propositions.Christian List - 2004 - American Political Science Review 98 (3):495-513.


Added to PP index

Total views
6 ( #1,133,882 of 2,507,866 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #117,805 of 2,507,866 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes