Determining proxy consent

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (4):389-403 (1983)
The paper clarifies the relative merits and proper roles of standards of review in the determination of proxy consent for those unable to make decisions concerning their own medical treatment. The "substituted judgment" standard asks which treatment the incompetent person would choose if competent, while the "best interests" test asks which treatment would benefit the patient. The tests are discussed in relation to the moral principles of autonomy and beneficence which provide their justification. I distinguish six types of cases involving incompetent patients and argue that which standard is appropriate depends on the type of case involved. A "rational choice" standard, which asks "What would the incompetent patient choose if his or her choice were rational?", is proposed as a way of determining best interests. Keywords: proxy consent, nontreatment of incompetent persons, substituted judgment CiteULike Connotea What's this?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jmp/8.4.389
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,694
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
Added to PP index

Total downloads
17 ( #293,132 of 2,197,248 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #97,085 of 2,197,248 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature