Article info
PDFResearch ethics
Commentary
Response to commentaries by Karin Rolanda Jongsma and Suzanne van de Vathorst, and Oliver Hallich
- Correspondence to Dr Thomas Buller, Department of Philosophy, Illinois State University, 412 Stevenson Hall, Campus Box 4540, Normal, IL 61790, USA; tgbulle{at}ilstu.edu
Citation
Response to commentaries by Karin Rolanda Jongsma and Suzanne van de Vathorst, and Oliver Hallich
Publication history
- Received February 26, 2015
- Accepted April 2, 2015
- First published April 17, 2015.
Online issue publication
July 24, 2015
Article Versions
- Previous version (17 April 2015).
- 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
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
- 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
- Ethics of care challenge to advance directives 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