Article Text
PDF
Abstract
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 Altmetric.com
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:
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Advance consent, critical interests and dementia research
- Advance euthanasia directives and the Dutch prosecution
- Tom Buller on the principle of precedent autonomy and the relation between critical and experiential interests
- Dementia research and advance consent: it is not about critical interests
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients
- Euthanasia in persons with advanced dementia: a dignity-enhancing care approach
- Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: who should decide?
- A new law on advance directives in Germany
- AEDs are problematic, but Mrs A is a misleading case