Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to commentaries by Karin Rolanda Jongsma and Suzanne van de Vathorst, and Oliver Hallich
  1. Thomas Buller
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas Buller, Department of Philosophy, Illinois State University, 412 Stevenson Hall, Campus Box 4540, Normal, IL 61790, USA; tgbulle{at}


The authors of the two commentaries raise some interesting and important objections to my paper, ‘Advance Consent, Critical Interests, and Dementia Research’. In my response I try to show that the objections raised can be understood as general objections against advance directives, rather than against research directives in particular. Since my main argument in the paper is that if we accept advance directives for treatment then we should accept them for research, arguments showing that we should not accept advance directives at all are consistent with my point of view.

  • Research Ethics
  • Paternalism
  • Mentally Diasbled Persons
  • Informed Consent
  • Ethics

Statistics from

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.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you