FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1998415515> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1998415515 endingPage "S11" @default.
• W1998415515 startingPage "S11" @default.
• W1998415515 abstract "Coventional medical ethics champions formal advance directives as a means of determining morally appropriate medical care for decisionally incapacitated individuals, and recent legislation such as the Patient Self determination Act implies plies that advance directives are politically acceptable. These observation suggest that advance directives might count as a good method of decision making for decisionally in capacitated patients. But how can we know this To address research priorities relevant to improving decisionmaking for decisionally incapacitated patients, we need at least to begin to answer this question. After all, if we don,t have a set of criteria with which to evaluate formal approaches to decisionmaking, it will be difficult to ask meaningful research questions. In proposing such criteria, I assume that knowing whether an approach is good hinges on knowing whether it is both theoretically plausible and clinically applicable - a good approach will be satisfactory in both domains. Here, then, are five criteria for assessing decisionmaking for decisionally incapacitated patients. 1. The underlying theoretical model must be logical and clear. 2. The approach should be consistent with deeply held societal values such as self-determination, well-being, and justice, at a level where agreement about procedures is possible. 3. Decisions emanating from the approach ought to be empirically reliable and valid.[1] 4. The approach should work in actual clinical settings, that is, the formal model must yield acceptable practical methods for enhancing the care of decisionally incapacitated patients. 5. The processes and outcomes of care should be improved by using an approach consistent with the model. Developing Research Priorities Applying these criteria to the prevailing approach to decisionmaking for decisionally incapacitated patients suggests some areas for potential research. Exemplified in the work of Dan Brock, the prevailing approach is predicated on the assumption that preferences for life-sustaining therapy made in advance of illness validly extend patients, self-determination through situations of decisional incapacity.[2] The theoretical model establishes a clear hierarchy of standards to guide decisionmaking: first priority is given to the patient,s wishes as expressed in an advance directive, second priority goes to substituted judgment and best interests serves as the fallback standard. To begin with the first of the five criteria, at the theoretical level, the model underlying the prevailing approach meets the criterion of logic and clarity. Brock has, for example, offered strategies for surmounting the apparent difficulty of accommodating persons who make advance directives and go on to develop a dementing disorder (such as Alzheimer disease), where a different self emerges that may bear little resemblance to the self that established the directive.[3] Apropos of the second criterion, advance directives in general, and Brock,s lexical model in particular, honor broad societal commitments to self-determination. But while ordering autonomy over well-being and justice may be consistent with the primacy typically afforded to self-determination many procedural matters such as contracts, wills, and in formed consent, putting autonomy ahead of other moral considerations makes it difficult to justify overriding advance directives ton grounds of well-being), or to honor the interests of others (on grounds of justice). While the possibility of justified overriding, alone seems to under mine the conventional approach on formal grounds, empirical data derived from situations in which trumping of advance directives actually occurs might inform theoretical work. In addition, the rate of trumping may be important. That is, if formal advance directives are often over ridden, they would be ineffectual on practical grounds. Similarly, both theoretical and empirical attention should address the extent to which the interests of others ought to influence decisionmaking for patients with and without decisional capacity. …" @default.
• W1998415515 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1998415515 creator A5054484886 @default.
• W1998415515 date "1994-11-01" @default.
• W1998415515 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W1998415515 title "Recognizing Good Decisionmaking for Incapacitated Patients" @default.
• W1998415515 cites W2048997229 @default.
• W1998415515 cites W2058399962 @default.
• W1998415515 cites W2063882842 @default.
• W1998415515 cites W2116701230 @default.
• W1998415515 cites W2337048718 @default.
• W1998415515 cites W1967092342 @default.
• W1998415515 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/3563474" @default.
• W1998415515 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7860269" @default.
• W1998415515 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W1998415515 type Work @default.
• W1998415515 sameAs 1998415515 @default.
• W1998415515 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W1998415515 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1998415515 hasAuthorship W1998415515A5054484886 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConceptScore W1998415515C108827166 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConceptScore W1998415515C144133560 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConceptScore W1998415515C15744967 @default.
• W1998415515 hasConceptScore W1998415515C41008148 @default.
• W1998415515 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1998415515 hasLocation W19984155151 @default.
• W1998415515 hasLocation W19984155152 @default.
• W1998415515 hasOpenAccess W1998415515 @default.
• W1998415515 hasPrimaryLocation W19984155151 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W1596801655 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2130043461 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2350741829 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2382290278 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1998415515 hasRelatedWork W2530322880 @default.
• W1998415515 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W1998415515 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1998415515 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1998415515 magId "1998415515" @default.
• W1998415515 workType "article" @default.