Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
As I sympathise with the main thesis of Tom Buller's article1—the thesis that if we are prepared to accept advance directives in the context of treatment then we should also accept them in the context of research—I shall focus my commentary on a premise of his argument which he accepts for the sake of argument: the principle of precedent autonomy. In short, the principle claims that it is the right of a competent individual to make decisions for a later time once competence has been lost. Whether we accept it or not crucially hinges on how we assess the relation between critical and experiential interests. Buller writes: “The authority and legitimacy of critical interests are not negated by contradictory experiential interests. Accordingly, to respect the wishes of the now incompetent patient is to override a legitimate exercise of the individual's autonomy”. I shall argue that the first sentence does not hold true sans phrase. Rather, it needs some specification. Different scenarios can be distinguished:
There may be a simultaneous contradiction between critical and experiential interests. Leading a healthy life may be central to my conception of a good life, but while having a critical interest in living healthily I may at the same time feel a pressing need to smoke a cigarette. In this case the authority of critical interests is left untouched by contravening experiential interests because, as Buller rightly writes, ‘this is precisely their function’: critical interests are (in part) defined as interests whose function is to control experiential interests that run contrary to our present critical interests.
There may, however, also be a non-simultaneous contradiction between critical and experiential interests: it may occur that while a person loses her ability to have critical interests she still has experiential interests, and these latter interests may …
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Advance consent, critical interests and dementia research
- Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?
- Ethics of care challenge to advance directives for dementia patients
- Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- Dementia research and advance consent: it is not about critical interests
- Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients
- Clarifying best interests
- The weight attributed to patient values in determining best interests
- Substituted decision making and the dispositional choice account