This paper argues that the concept of best interests in the context of clinical decisions draws on concepts rooted in the philosophical discipline of axiology. Reflection on the philosophical origins enables a distinction to be drawn between those interests related to clinical goals and those global interests that are axiological in nature. The implication of this distinction is most clearly seen in the context of end of life decisions and it is argued here that greater weight ought to be given (...) to the positive requests, and not merely competent refusals, of patients at the end of life. (shrink)

Abstract:Advance directives entail a refusal expressed by a still-healthy patient. Three consequences stem from that fact: (a) advance refusal is unspecific, since it is impossible to predict what the patient’s conditions and the risk-benefit ratio may be in the foreseeable future; (b) those decisions cannot be as well informed as those formulated while the disease is in progress; (c) while both current consent and refusal can be revoked as the disease unfolds, until the treatment starts out, advance directives become effective (...) when the patient becomes incapable or unconscious; such decisions can therefore not be revoked at any stage of the disease. Therefore, advance directives are binding for doctors only at the stage of advance treatment planning, i.e., only if they refer to an illness already in progress. (shrink)