On substituted arguments

In their essay, “Clarifying Substituted Judgment: the Endorsed Life Approach,”1 Wendler and Phillips add to a growing body of literature that acknowledges what has been apparent to many clinicians and commentators for a long time: something is seriously wrong with the contemporary US approach to sur...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Authors: Sulmasy, P. (Author) ; Sulmasy, Lois Snyder (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2015
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2015, Volume: 41, Issue: 9, Pages: 732-733
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1816151785
003 DE-627
005 20230426115828.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2014-102503  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816151785 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816151785 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Sulmasy, P.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a On substituted arguments 
264 1 |c 2015 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In their essay, “Clarifying Substituted Judgment: the Endorsed Life Approach,”1 Wendler and Phillips add to a growing body of literature that acknowledges what has been apparent to many clinicians and commentators for a long time: something is seriously wrong with the contemporary US approach to surrogate decision making. Their essay summarises background that has been more extensively reviewed elsewhere: the history of how we came to this impasse, and the many theoretical and empirical critiques of substituted judgement.2 Drawing on this background, they propose an alternative to substituted judgement that differs little from the Substituted Interests Model that we proposed in 2010,3 doing so, in part, by misrepresenting our published views.The overlap between their model and ours is befuddling, but by calling their approach an attempt to ‘clarify’ rather than replace the substituted judgement standard, they only further muddy the waters. The approach they advocate is so similar to our Substituted Interests Model that giving it a different name and calling it an ‘interpretation’ of substituted judgement will only wind up being confusing for surrogates, clinicians and policy makers.Their primary motivation seems to be to ‘save’ substituted judgement since it is so well established in law and bioethical education. After noting some of the many problems with substituted judgement, they nonetheless both propose retaining the name and advise asking the surrogate to provide ‘the decision the patient would make for herself, if competent.’ They give two reasons for this: (1) they believe this directive is a useful approximation of the standard they think is really the correct one, namely, to provide the decision most consistent with the life the patient seems to have endorsed for herself, and (2) they think substituted judgement has become so ensconced in policy and practice that it would … 
601 |a Substitution 
601 |a Argumentation 
700 1 |a Sulmasy, Lois Snyder  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 41(2015), 9, Seite 732-733  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:41  |g year:2015  |g number:9  |g pages:732-733 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014199  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102503  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/41/9/732.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 41  |j 2015  |e 9  |h 732-733 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185605714 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816151785 
LOK |0 005 20220908053645 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#E78408AAE50B09F910829005DF982BBECD920CC5 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014199 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw