Decision-Making Capacity and Authenticity.

IF 1.8 3区哲学 Q2 ETHICS

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1007/s11673-024-10372-w

Tim Aylsworth, Jake Greenblum

引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is wide consensus among bioethicists about the importance of autonomy when determining whether or not a patient has the right to refuse life-saving treatment (LST). In this context, autonomy has typically been understood in terms of the patient's ability to make an informed decision. According to the traditional view, decision-making capacity (DMC) is seen as both necessary and sufficient for the right to refuse LST. Recently, this view has been challenged by those who think that considerations of authenticity and putative counterexamples should lead us to revise the traditional account. In this paper, we respond to these revisionist arguments, and we defend the traditional view according to which we have autonomy-based reasons to respect a patient's decision to refuse LST if and only if she has DMC.

查看原文本刊更多论文

决策能力与真实性。

在确定病人是否有权拒绝拯救生命的治疗（LST）时，生命伦理学者对自主权的重要性达成了广泛共识。在这方面，自主权通常被理解为病人做出知情决定的能力。根据传统观点，决策能力（DMC）被认为是拒绝 LST 权利的必要条件和充分条件。最近，这一观点受到了一些人的质疑，他们认为，真实性和可能存在的反例等因素应促使我们对传统观点进行修正。在本文中，我们对这些修正论点做出了回应，并为传统观点进行了辩护，根据传统观点，如果且只有当病人拥有 DMC 时，我们才有基于自主权的理由尊重她拒绝 LST 的决定。

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

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学：伦理

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

8.30%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies