Advance directives need full legal status in persons with dementia.

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Nursing Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1177/09697330241247320
Dean Evan Hart
{"title":"Advance directives need full legal status in persons with dementia.","authors":"Dean Evan Hart","doi":"10.1177/09697330241247320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Currently, in the United States, there is no legal obligation for medical professionals or civil courts to uphold patients' Advance Directives (ADs) regarding end-of-life care. The applicability and standing of ADs prepared by Alzheimer's patients is a persistent issue in bioethics. Those who argue against giving ADs full status take two main approaches: (1) appealing to beneficence on behalf of the Alzheimer's patient and (2) claiming that there is no longer any personal equivalence between the AD's creator and the subject of the AD. In this paper, I present profound arguments against both approaches. Firstly, I argue that the principle of beneficence cannot apply in the case of Alzheimer's patients, and, secondly, that the moral and legal authority of the AD need not depend on strict equivalence of personal identity. I conclude by arguing that valid ADs protect the dignity and autonomy of Alzheimer's patients and that, therefore, there are moral obligations to uphold ADs which should be reflected in public policy and legislation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1247-1257"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330241247320","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Currently, in the United States, there is no legal obligation for medical professionals or civil courts to uphold patients' Advance Directives (ADs) regarding end-of-life care. The applicability and standing of ADs prepared by Alzheimer's patients is a persistent issue in bioethics. Those who argue against giving ADs full status take two main approaches: (1) appealing to beneficence on behalf of the Alzheimer's patient and (2) claiming that there is no longer any personal equivalence between the AD's creator and the subject of the AD. In this paper, I present profound arguments against both approaches. Firstly, I argue that the principle of beneficence cannot apply in the case of Alzheimer's patients, and, secondly, that the moral and legal authority of the AD need not depend on strict equivalence of personal identity. I conclude by arguing that valid ADs protect the dignity and autonomy of Alzheimer's patients and that, therefore, there are moral obligations to uphold ADs which should be reflected in public policy and legislation.

对于痴呆症患者来说,预先指令需要有充分的法律地位。
目前,在美国,医疗专业人员或民事法庭都没有法律义务维护病人的临终关怀预嘱(ADs)。阿尔茨海默氏症患者所准备的预嘱的适用性和地位是生命伦理学中一个长期存在的问题。那些反对给予预嘱充分地位的人主要采取两种方法:(1)代表阿尔茨海默氏症患者呼吁恩惠;(2)声称预嘱的创建者与预嘱的主体之间不再有任何个人等同性。在本文中,我针对这两种方法提出了深刻的论点。首先,我认为恩惠原则不适用于阿尔茨海默氏症患者;其次,反倾销协定的道德和法律权威不必依赖于严格的个人身份等同性。最后,我认为有效的 AD 可以保护阿尔茨海默病患者的尊严和自主权,因此,维护 AD 的道德义务应体现在公共政策和立法中。
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
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
×
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