Article Text
Abstract
Patient preference predictors (PPPs) promise to provide medical professionals with a new solution to the problem of making treatment decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients. I show that the use of PPPs faces a version of a normative problem familiar from legal scholarship: the problem of naked statistical evidence. I sketch two sorts of possible reply, vindicating and debunking, and suggest that our reply to the problem in the one domain ought to mirror our reply in the other. The conclusion is thus conditional: if we think the problem of naked statistical evidence is a serious problem in the legal domain, then we should be concerned about the symmetrical problem for PPPs.
- autonomy
- living wills/advance directives
- philosophical ethics
- patient perspective
- paternalism
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor
- Trial by Triad: substituted judgment, mental illness and the right to die
- Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients
- Ethics of the algorithmic prediction of goal of care preferences: from theory to practice
- Deciding on behalf of others: a population survey on procedural preferences for surrogate decision-making
- Adherence to advance directives in critical care decision making: vignette study
- Sovereignty, authenticity and the patient preference predictor
- A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: what do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor?
- Meta-surrogate decision making and artificial intelligence
- Determinants of completion of advance directives: a cross-sectional comparison of 649 outpatients from private practices versus 2158 outpatients from a university clinic