Article info
Clinical ethics
Paper
Patients' perspectives of the substitute decision maker: who makes better decisions?
- Correspondence to Fariba Asghari, Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, #23, Shanzdah Azar St, Tehran, Iran; fasghari{at}tums.ac.ir
Citation
Patients' perspectives of the substitute decision maker: who makes better decisions?
Publication history
- Received October 5, 2010
- Revised January 28, 2011
- Accepted March 2, 2011
- First published April 8, 2011.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Other content recommended for you
- Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide?
- In the patient’s best interest: appraising social network site information for surrogate decision making
- Proxy consent: moral authority misconceived
- Transitions in decision-making authority at the end of life: a problem of law, ethics and practice in deceased donation
- A new law on advance directives in Germany
- Substituted decision making and the dispositional choice account
- Deciding on behalf of others: a population survey on procedural preferences for surrogate decision-making
- Assessing mental capacity: the Mental Capacity Act
- Randomised trial of a serious illness decision aid (Plan Well Guide) for patients and their substitute decision-makers to improve engagement in advance care planning
- Doctors’ perspectives on adhering to advance care directives when making medical decisions for patients: an Australian interview study