Authors
Abstract
A self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP) in neuroprognostication occurs when a patient in coma is predicted to have a poor outcome, and life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn on the basis of that prediction, thus directly bringing about a poor outcome (viz. death) for that patient. In contrast to the predominant emphasis in the bioethics literature, we look beyond the moral issues raised by the possibility that an erroneous prediction might lead to the death of a patient who otherwise would have lived. Instead, we focus on the problematic epistemic consequences of neuroprognostic SFPs in settings where research and practice intersect. When this sort of SFP occurs, the problem is that physicians and researchers are never in a position to notice whether their original prognosis was correct or incorrect, since the patient dies anyway. Thus, SFPs keep us from discerning false positives from true positives, inhibiting proper assessment of novel prognostic tests. This epistemic problem of SFPs thus impedes learning, but ethical obligations of patient care make it difficult to avoid SFPs. We then show how the impediment to catching false positive indicators of poor outcome distorts research on novel techniques for neuroprognostication, allowing biases to persist in prognostic tests. We finally highlight a particular risk that a precautionary bias towards early withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment may be amplified. We conclude with guidelines about how researchers can mitigate the epistemic problems of SFPs, to achieve more responsible innovation of neuroprognostication for patients in coma.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation.V. Blok & P. Lemmens - 2015 - In Bert- Jaap Koops, Ilse Oosterlaken, Henny Romijn, Tsjalling Swiwestra & Jeroen Van Den Hoven (eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19-35.
Responsible Management of Innovation in Business.Thomas B. Long, Edurne Iñigo & Vincent Blok - 2020 - In Oliver Laasch, Roy Suddaby, R. E. Freeman & Dima Jamali (eds.), Research Handbook of Responsible Management. pp. 606-623.
Understanding and Managing Responsible Innovation.Hans Bennink - 2020 - Philosophy of Management 19 (3):317-348.
Why Responsible Innovation.Rene Von Schomberg - 2019 - In Rene Von Schomberg & Jonathan Hankins (eds.), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource. Cheltenham, UK: pp. 12-32.
International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource.René von Schomberg & Jonathan Hankins (eds.) - 2019 - Cheltenham, Royaume-Uni: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-08-19

Total views
56 ( #201,196 of 2,499,361 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #34,863 of 2,499,361 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes