PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11657917

Precedent autonomy and personal identity.

Michael Quante
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Debates on precedent autonomy and some forms of paternalistic interventions, which are related to questions of personal identity, are analyzed. The discussion is based on the distinction between personal identity as persistence and as biographical identity. It first is shown that categorical objections to advance directives and "Ulysses contracts" are based on false assumptions about personal identity that conflate persistence and biographical identity. Therefore, advance directives and "Ulysses contracts" are ethically acceptable tools for prolonging one's autonomy. The notions of personality and biographical identity are used to analyze the ethically relevant features. Thereby, it is shown that these concepts are operative in and useful for thinking in biomedical ethics. The overall conclusion is that categorical arguments against precedent autonomy or "Ulysses contracts" are based on misleading theories of personal identity and that advance directives are an ethically respectable tool for prolonging individuals' autonomy in cases of dementia and mental illness.

Explore related subjects

Advance Directive AdherenceAdvance DirectivesAltruismBeneficenceDecision MakingDementiaFreedomHumansIndividualityMental CompetencyPersons with Psychiatric DisordersPaternalismPersonal AutonomyPersonhoodPhilosophySelf ConceptSocial ValuesThird-Party ConsentTissue DonorsTissue and Organ ProcurementWillsWithholding TreatmentAnalytical ApproachDeath and EuthanasiaPhilosophical ApproachJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael Quante. 1999. Precedent autonomy and personal identity.. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.1999.0028

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Ethics seminars: withdrawal of treatment in the emergency department--when and how?

Although increasing discussion has occurred within emergency medicine about indications for withholding cardiac life support and other resuscitative interventions, emergency physicians (EPs) may be less familiar with the ethical, legal, and practical issues surrounding withdrawal of life support that has already been initiated. Both physicians and out-of-hospital personnel must act rapidly in critical situations and must assume that the patient has the desire to be resuscitated, unless clear evidence exists to the contrary. Often, only after initial life-saving actions have stabilized the patient is there time to reflect and determine a patient's desires regarding such interventions. When the EP can clearly discern a patient's previously stated wishes during the emergency department (ED) stay, these wishes should be honored in the ED. Respecting a patient's request to avoid unwanted, invasive treatments near death may involve withdrawing interventions that could not be withheld during the first few minutes of care. In this article, the authors use a case of out-of-hospital stabilization of a patient as a springboard to review the ethical and legal framework for withdrawal of life-sustaining care, as well as the practical issues involved with withdrawal of such care in the ED.

Advance Directive Adherence↗
PubMed2006

Living wills and the Mental Capacity Act: a postal questionnaire survey of UK geriatricians.

OBJECTIVE: To determine geriatricians' experience of and views on living wills, National Health Service Trusts' support of advance end-of-life health care planning and geriatricians' views on related legal changes in the Mental Capacity Act. DESIGN: Anonymous postal questionnaire survey of all 1,426 British Geriatrics Society members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. RESULTS: A total of 842 (59%) questionnaires were returned. Of 811 geriatricians, 454 (56%) had cared for patients with living wills. Of the 280 who cared for patients when the living will had come into effect, 108 (39%) had changed treatment because of the living will and 84 (78%) of those felt that decisions had been easier to make. Living wills not already in effect made discussions with patients [171 of 178 (96%)] and families [135 of 178 (76%)] easier. Of 779 geriatricians, 713 (92%) saw advantages of older people using living wills; 467 of these also expressed concerns. Only 16 (2%) geriatricians who had concerns said that there were no advantages. A total of 214 (27%) were aware that their Trust had a form to help with discussions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Fewer [126 of 781 (16%)] were aware of a Trust policy on living wills. The proposal, in the Mental Capacity Bill, for advance refusals of treatment was supported by 59% (476 of 801), yet the proposal for a lasting power of attorney (LPA) covering health care was only supported by 47% (382 of 806). CONCLUSION: Many geriatricians have positive experiences of caring for patients with living wills. Despite recognising potential problems, most geriatricians support the use of living wills by older people. However, most believe that their Trust does not have a policy to support advance health care planning. Geriatricians have reservations about LPAs covering health care.

Advance Directive Adherence↗