AEDs are problematic, but Mrs A is a misleading case

Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (2):90-91 (2019)

Abstract
The case of Mrs A is a provocative example of euthanasia by advance directive to avoid increasingly severe dementia. It is also a ‘perfect storm’ of a disturbing case, revealing both the challenges that can arise with advance euthanasia directives generally and particular issues in the Dutch procedures. Kim, Miller and Dresser have done a distinct service to bioethics in detailing the case, in explaining the basis of the regional euthanasia review committee reprimand of the administering geriatrician and in highlighting some significant deficiencies in Dutch procedures.1 Many readers, after encountering the case, may find themselves sceptical that AEDs can be an ethically viable vehicle for avoiding living into severe dementia. I will argue that caution and care, not resistance to AEDs for dementia, is in order. Real dilemmas of implementation are inherent in advance directives, to be sure, dilemmas that can be aggravated by a patient’s dementia. Yet much can be done in writing an AED to make its implementation in dementia less problematic, and the Dutch emphasis on intolerable suffering as a necessary condition for euthanasia is not the appropriate legal framework. The difficulties in the case begin with the directive itself. Any advance directive, whether for refusing lifesaving treatment or for physician-assisted death, needs to be clear about what is and is not to happen and when. At first Mrs A’s directive seems to provide a trigger point: ‘I want to make use of the legal right to … euthanasia when I am still at all mentally competent and am no longer able to live at home with my husband. I absolutely do not want to be placed in an institution for elderly dementia patients’. In a revision added a year before her death, the time had become ‘whenever I think the time …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2018-104780
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,625
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

Advance Directives, Dementia, and Physician-Assisted Death.Paul T. Menzel & Bonnie Steinbock - 2013 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (2):484-500.
Advance Directives, Dementia, and Physician‐Assisted Death.Paul T. Menzel & Bonnie Steinbock - 2013 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (2):484-500.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

‘Mrs A’: A Controversial or Extreme Case?Jesse Wall - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (2):77-78.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Lying and Misleading in Discourse.Andreas Stokke - 2016 - Philosophical Review 125 (1):83-134.
The Wounds in Iliad 13–16.K. B. Saunders - 1999 - Classical Quarterly 49 (2):345-363.
The Wounds in Iliad 13–16.K. B. Saunders - 1999 - Classical Quarterly 49 (02):345-.
What Do You Do with Misleading Evidence?By Michael Veber - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (217):557–569.
Should Physicians Fake Diagnoses to Help Their Patients?G. Helgesson & N. Lynoe - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (3):133-136.
Misleading "Misleading Defeaters".Peter D. Klein - 1979 - Journal of Philosophy 76 (7):382-386.
Misleading Evidence and the Dogmatism Puzzle.Ru Ye - 2016 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (3):563-575.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-02-28

Total views
8 ( #794,027 of 2,242,372 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #321,184 of 2,242,372 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature