Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:44:20.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to “Reassessing the Reliability of Advance Directives” by Thomas May (CQ Vol. 6, No. 5)

Advance Directives and Voluntary Slavery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 1998

Christopher Tollefsen
Christopher Tollefsen
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent article Thomas May has argued that the use of advance directives (ADs) to respect a no longer competent patient's autonomy is a failed strategy. Respect for patient autonomy is clearly one of the guiding moral principles of modern medicine, and its importance is reflected in medical emphasis on informed consent. Prima facie, at least, ADs seem likewise to respect patient autonomy by allowing patients to make decisions about treatment in advance of situations in which the patient may no longer be able to specify the form of treatment desired. So a claim that ADs do not extend patient autonomy to these situations of diminished competence represents a serious criticism of our understanding not only of advance directives, but of autonomy as well.

Type
RESPONSES AND DIALOGUE
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 405 - 413
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)