Should advance directives (ADs) such as living wills be employed to direct the care of the severely demented? In considering this question, I focus primarily on the claims of Rebecca Dresser who objects in principle to the use of ADs in this context. Dresser has persuasively argued that ADs are both theoretically incoherent and ethically dangerous. She proceeds to advocate a Best Interest Standard as the best way for deciding when and how the demented ought to be treated. I put (...) forth a compromise position: both ADs and the Best Interest Standard have roles to play in guiding the care of the severely demented. (shrink)

Ever since the 1960s, when medical science became capable of prolonging the dying process beyond bounds that many patients would find acceptable, people have sought “death with dignity,” or “a natural death,” or “a good death.” Once debilitation from a fatal affliction has reached a personally intolerable point, dying patients have sought to control the manner and timing of death via diverse techniques. Some sought the disconnection of life-sustaining medical interventions, such as respirators and dialysis machines. Beyond freedom from unwelcome (...) interventions, some patients intent on avoiding suffering sought access to pain relief medication—even in dosages posing some risk of hastening death. Other dying patients sought access to deep sedation, even knowing that they would never emerge from the resultant unconsciousness. Still other patients voluntarily refused to eat or drink or to accept artificial nutrition and hydration. (shrink)

A challenge has recently been levelled against the legal and/or moral legitimacy of some advance directives. It has been argued that in certain cases an advance directive carries no weight in a decision on whether to withhold treatment, since the individual in the debilitating state is not the same person as the person who created the advance directive. In the first section of this paper, I examine two formulations of the argument against the moral legitimacy of the advance directives under (...) review. The second section reviews, and criticizes, an objection to such arguments. In the penultimate section, possible models supporting the viability of the advance directives are considered. The final section makes good on an obligation incurred by the title of the paper. (shrink)

Some of the concerns that have been raised in connection to the use of advance directives are of the epistemic variety. Such concerns highlight the possibility that adhering to an advance directive may conflict with what the author of the directive actually wants at the time of treatment. However, at least one objection to the employment of advance directives is metaphysical in nature. The objection to be discussed here, first formulated by Rebecca Dresser and labeled by Allen Buchanan as the (...) slavery argument and David DeGrazia the someone else problem, aims to undermine the legitimacy of certain uses of advance directives by concluding that such uses rest upon an incorrect assumption about the identity over time of those ostensibly governed by the directives. There have been numerous attempts to respond to this objection. This paper aims to assess two strategies that have been pursued to cope with the problem. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to identify and compare the attitudes of patients and health care professionals towards advance directives. Advance directives promote recognition of the patient's autonomy, letting the individual exercise a certain measure of control over life-sustaining care and treatment in the eventuality of becoming incompetent. DESIGN: Attitudes to advance directives were evaluated using a 44-item self-reported questionnaire. It yields an overall score as well as five factor scores: autonomy, beneficence, justice, external norms, and the affective dimension. SETTING: (...) Health care institutions in the province of Québec, Canada. Survey sample: The sampling consisted of 921 subjects: 123 patients, 167 physicians, 340 nurses and 291 administrators of health care institutions. RESULTS: Although the general attitude of each population was favourable to the expression of autonomy, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that physicians attached less importance to this subscale than did other populations (p < .001). Above all, they favoured legal external norms and beneficence. Physicians and administrators also attached less importance to the affective dimension than did patients and nurses. Specifically, physicians' attitudes towards advance directives were shown to be less positive than patients' attitudes. CONCLUSION: More attention should be given to the importance of adequately informing patients about advance directives because they may not represent an adequate means for patients to assert their autonomy. (shrink)