Journal article icon

Journal article

Advance medical decision-making differs across first- and third-person perspectives

Abstract:
Background:

Advance healthcare decision-making presumes that a prior treatment preference expressed with sufficient mental capacity (“T1 preference”) should trump a contrary preference expressed after significant cognitive decline (“T2 preference”). This assumption is much debated in normative bioethics, but little is known about lay judgments in this domain. This study investigated participants’ judgments about which preference should be followed, and whether these judgments differed depending on a first-person (deciding for one’s future self) versus third-person (deciding for a friend or stranger) perspective.

Methods:

A vignette-based survey was conducted (N = 1445 US Americans; gender-balanced sample), in a 3 (relationship: self, best friend, stranger) × 2 (T1 preference: treat, do not treat) × 2 (T2 contrary preference: ambiguous, unambiguous) design.

Results:

Participants were more likely to defer to the incapacitated T2 preference of a third-party, while being more likely to insist on following their own T1 capacitated preference. Further, participants were more likely to conclude that others with substantial cognitive decline were still their “true selves,” which correlated with increased deference to their T2 preferences.

Conclusions:

These findings add to the growing evidence that lay intuitions concerning the ethical entitlement to have decisions respected are not only a function of cognition, as would be expected under many traditional bioethical accounts, but also depend on the relationship of the decision to the decisionmaker’s true self.

Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1080/23294515.2024.2336900

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
HUMS
Department:
Philosophy Faculty
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-9691-2888


Publisher:
Taylor & Francis
Journal:
AJOB Empirical Bioethics More from this journal
Volume:
15
Issue:
4
Pages:
237-245
Publication date:
2024-04-30
Acceptance date:
2024-03-03
DOI:
EISSN:
2329-4523
ISSN:
2329-4515


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
1772088
Local pid:
pubs:1772088
Deposit date:
2024-03-07

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP