Article info
PDFResponse
Messy autonomy: Commentary on Patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence
- Correspondence to Dr Stephen David John, History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK; sdj22{at}cam.ac.uk
Citation
Messy autonomy: Commentary on Patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence
Publication history
- Received June 6, 2018
- Accepted June 26, 2018
- First published July 14, 2018.
Online issue publication
November 22, 2018
Article Versions
- Previous version (22 November 2018).
- 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
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Other content recommended for you
- Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor
- Patient preference predictors and the problem of naked statistical evidence
- Clarifying substituted judgement: the endorsed life approach
- What you believe you want, may not be what the algorithm knows
- The bioethical principles and Confucius’ moral philosophy
- Substituted decision making and the dispositional choice account
- Ethics of the algorithmic prediction of goal of care preferences: from theory to practice
- Sovereignty, authenticity and the patient preference predictor
- First among equals? Adaptive preferences and the limits of autonomy in medical ethics
- To be, or not to be? The role of the unconscious in transgender transitioning: identity, autonomy and well-being