When People Facing Dementia Choose to Hasten Death: The Landscape of Current Ethical, Legal, Medical, and Social Considerations in the United States

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Emily A. Largent, Jane Lowers, Thaddeus Mason Pope, Timothy E. Quill, Matthew K. Wynia
{"title":"When People Facing Dementia Choose to Hasten Death: The Landscape of Current Ethical, Legal, Medical, and Social Considerations in the United States","authors":"Emily A. Largent,&nbsp;Jane Lowers,&nbsp;Thaddeus Mason Pope,&nbsp;Timothy E. Quill,&nbsp;Matthew K. Wynia","doi":"10.1002/hast.1550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p><i>Some individuals facing dementia contemplate hastening their own death: weighing the possibility of living longer with dementia against the alternative of dying sooner but avoiding the later stages of cognitive and functional impairment. This weighing resonates with an ethical and legal consensus in the United States that individuals can voluntarily choose to forgo life-sustaining interventions and also that medical professionals can support these choices even when they will result in an earlier death. For these reasons, whether and how a terminally ill individual can choose to control the timing of their death is a topic that cannot be avoided when considering the dementia trajectory. With a focus on the U.S. context, this landscape review considers the status of provisions that would legally permit people facing dementia to hasten death with appropriate support from medical professionals. This review can be used to plan and guide clinical and legal practitioner discussion and policy development concerning evolving questions not fully covered by existing medical decision-making provisions</i>.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"54 S1","pages":"S11-S21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.1550","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1550","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Some individuals facing dementia contemplate hastening their own death: weighing the possibility of living longer with dementia against the alternative of dying sooner but avoiding the later stages of cognitive and functional impairment. This weighing resonates with an ethical and legal consensus in the United States that individuals can voluntarily choose to forgo life-sustaining interventions and also that medical professionals can support these choices even when they will result in an earlier death. For these reasons, whether and how a terminally ill individual can choose to control the timing of their death is a topic that cannot be avoided when considering the dementia trajectory. With a focus on the U.S. context, this landscape review considers the status of provisions that would legally permit people facing dementia to hasten death with appropriate support from medical professionals. This review can be used to plan and guide clinical and legal practitioner discussion and policy development concerning evolving questions not fully covered by existing medical decision-making provisions.

当面临痴呆症的人选择加速死亡时:美国当前的伦理、法律、医学和社会考量概况
一些面临痴呆症的人考虑加速自己的死亡:权衡患痴呆症后活得更久的可能性与早死但避免后期认知和功能障碍的选择。这种权衡与美国的伦理和法律共识产生了共鸣,即个人可以自愿选择放弃维持生命的干预措施,医疗专业人员也可以支持这些选择,即使这些选择会导致更早的死亡。基于这些原因,在考虑痴呆症的发展轨迹时,绝症患者是否以及如何选择控制自己的死亡时间是一个不容回避的话题。本综述以美国为重点,探讨了法律上允许痴呆症患者在医疗专业人员的适当支持下加速死亡的规定的现状。本综述可用于规划和指导临床和法律从业人员就现有医疗决策条款未完全涵盖的不断发展的问题进行讨论和制定政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信