50 Years of advance care planning: what do we call success?

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-08 DOI:10.1007/s40592-021-00127-3
Kerstin Knight
{"title":"50 Years of advance care planning: what do we call success?","authors":"Kerstin Knight","doi":"10.1007/s40592-021-00127-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Advance care planning (ACP) is promoted as beneficial practice internationally. This article critically examines different ways of understanding and measuring success in ACP. It has been 50 years since Luis Kutner first published his original idea of the Living Will, which was thought to be a contract between health carers and patients to provide for instructions about treatment choices in cases of mental incapacity. Its purpose was to extend a patient's right to autonomy and protect health carers from charges of wrong-doing. Yet, it can be doubtful whether different types of ACP achieve these goals rather than aiming at secondary gains. My discussion suggests that the current promotion of ACP is not always engaging critically with the original ACP intentions and may even pursue notions of success that may run contrary to respecting autonomy. The risk of this may especially be the case when high participation rates are taken as indicators of success for institutional ACP programs. I further suggest that Kutner's two original aims of protecting patient autonomy and preventing charges of wrong-doing are near impossible to achieve in conjunction, because their simultaneous pursuit fails to acknowledge that patients and carers have opposing needs for reassurance about possible judgment errors. I conclude that the most realistic idea of success of modern ACP is an acknowledgement of the importance of ongoing dialogue about what constitutes appropriate care and a diversity of aims rather than any kind of advance, contractual insurance in the face of controversy.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40592-021-00127-3","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00127-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Advance care planning (ACP) is promoted as beneficial practice internationally. This article critically examines different ways of understanding and measuring success in ACP. It has been 50 years since Luis Kutner first published his original idea of the Living Will, which was thought to be a contract between health carers and patients to provide for instructions about treatment choices in cases of mental incapacity. Its purpose was to extend a patient's right to autonomy and protect health carers from charges of wrong-doing. Yet, it can be doubtful whether different types of ACP achieve these goals rather than aiming at secondary gains. My discussion suggests that the current promotion of ACP is not always engaging critically with the original ACP intentions and may even pursue notions of success that may run contrary to respecting autonomy. The risk of this may especially be the case when high participation rates are taken as indicators of success for institutional ACP programs. I further suggest that Kutner's two original aims of protecting patient autonomy and preventing charges of wrong-doing are near impossible to achieve in conjunction, because their simultaneous pursuit fails to acknowledge that patients and carers have opposing needs for reassurance about possible judgment errors. I conclude that the most realistic idea of success of modern ACP is an acknowledgement of the importance of ongoing dialogue about what constitutes appropriate care and a diversity of aims rather than any kind of advance, contractual insurance in the face of controversy.

50年的提前护理计划:我们怎么称呼成功?
预先护理计划(ACP)作为有益的实践在国际上得到推广。本文批判性地考察了理解和衡量ACP成功的不同方法。50年前,路易斯·库特纳(Luis Kutner)首次发表了他的“生前遗嘱”(Living Will)的最初想法。生前遗嘱被认为是医护人员和患者之间的一份合同,在精神残疾的情况下为治疗选择提供指导。其目的是扩大病人的自主权,并保护医护人员免受不当行为的指控。然而,不同类型的ACP是否实现了这些目标,而不是以次要收益为目标,这是值得怀疑的。我的讨论表明,目前对ACP的推广并不总是与ACP最初的意图进行批判性的接触,甚至可能追求与尊重自治背道而驰的成功概念。当高参与率被视为机构ACP项目成功的指标时,这种风险可能尤其明显。我进一步认为,库特纳的两个最初目标——保护病人的自主权和防止对不当行为的指控——几乎不可能同时实现,因为他们同时追求的目标没有承认,病人和护理人员对可能出现的判断错误有截然相反的需要。我的结论是,现代ACP成功的最现实的想法是承认持续对话的重要性,讨论什么是适当的照顾和目标的多样性,而不是面对争议的任何形式的预付款和合同保险。
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
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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