Article Text
PDFResponse
Response to commentaries by Karin Rolanda Jongsma and Suzanne van de Vathorst, and Oliver Hallich
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
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
- Limits of advance directives in decision-making around food and nutrition in patients with dementia
- 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
- Advance directives for oral feeding in dementia: a response to Shelton and Geppert