Embracing ambivalence and hesitation: a Ricoeurian perspective on anticipatory choice processes at the end of life.

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-05 DOI:10.1007/s11019-024-10228-5
Els van Wijngaarden
{"title":"Embracing ambivalence and hesitation: a Ricoeurian perspective on anticipatory choice processes at the end of life.","authors":"Els van Wijngaarden","doi":"10.1007/s11019-024-10228-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Especially older adults are increasingly stimulated to think about, talk about and record their preferences with regard to future (health)care decisions, preferably in a pro-active manner. In this paper, I analyse these anticipatory choice processes. My goal is twofold: Firstly, to provide a deeper understanding of what it actually means to decide in advance about end-of-life treatments or options. Secondly, to make a theoretical contribution to bioethics and ACP-theories by rethinking the concept of end-of-life choices from a phenomenological viewpoint. To achieve this, I start by presenting a case narrative that elucidates how these anticipatory choices are lived. Secondly, I map out a theoretical framework about choice based on the phenomenology of the will of Paul Ricoeur. Finally, guided by this Ricoeurian framework, I investigate the potential meaning of choice in the context of contemporary advance care planning trajectories. The analysis demonstrates that choice and agency always imply notions of passivity and uncontrollability. It also indicates the significant value of hesitation and ambivalence. Moreover, it highlights the importance of the notion of co-responsibility in the context of anticipated end-of-life choices, and the relevant distinction between a (willed) choice and a wish. To improve care and support regarding end-of-life trajectories and to promote meaningful conversations, it is imperative to integrate these underrated elements more substantially in our theories, language and practical approaches. I conclude by suggesting that, in order to do justice to the real-life complexities, we might even need to revise the notion of advance 'directives'.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"555-566"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11519185/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10228-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Especially older adults are increasingly stimulated to think about, talk about and record their preferences with regard to future (health)care decisions, preferably in a pro-active manner. In this paper, I analyse these anticipatory choice processes. My goal is twofold: Firstly, to provide a deeper understanding of what it actually means to decide in advance about end-of-life treatments or options. Secondly, to make a theoretical contribution to bioethics and ACP-theories by rethinking the concept of end-of-life choices from a phenomenological viewpoint. To achieve this, I start by presenting a case narrative that elucidates how these anticipatory choices are lived. Secondly, I map out a theoretical framework about choice based on the phenomenology of the will of Paul Ricoeur. Finally, guided by this Ricoeurian framework, I investigate the potential meaning of choice in the context of contemporary advance care planning trajectories. The analysis demonstrates that choice and agency always imply notions of passivity and uncontrollability. It also indicates the significant value of hesitation and ambivalence. Moreover, it highlights the importance of the notion of co-responsibility in the context of anticipated end-of-life choices, and the relevant distinction between a (willed) choice and a wish. To improve care and support regarding end-of-life trajectories and to promote meaningful conversations, it is imperative to integrate these underrated elements more substantially in our theories, language and practical approaches. I conclude by suggesting that, in order to do justice to the real-life complexities, we might even need to revise the notion of advance 'directives'.

拥抱矛盾与犹豫:从李可染的视角看生命终结时的预期选择过程。
尤其是老年人,他们越来越多地思考、讨论和记录自己对未来(医疗)护理决定的偏好,最好是以一种积极主动的方式。在本文中,我将对这些预期选择过程进行分析。我的目标有两个:首先,深入理解提前决定临终治疗或选择的实际意义。其次,通过从现象学的角度重新思考临终选择的概念,为生命伦理学和 ACP 理论做出理论贡献。为此,我首先介绍了一个案例,阐明了这些预期选择是如何实现的。其次,我以保罗-里科尔的意志现象学为基础,勾勒出一个关于选择的理论框架。最后,在这一利科尔框架的指导下,我研究了选择在当代预先护理规划轨迹中的潜在意义。分析表明,选择和代理总是意味着被动和不可控的概念。它还表明了犹豫和矛盾的重要价值。此外,它还强调了共同责任概念在预期临终选择中的重要性,以及(意愿)选择和愿望之间的相关区别。为了改善对生命末期轨迹的关怀和支持,促进有意义的对话,我们必须在理论、语言和实践方法中更多地融入这些被低估的因素。最后,我建议,为了公正地对待现实生活中的复杂情况,我们甚至需要修改预先 "指示 "的概念。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
×
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