From informed consent to substituted judgment: Decision-making at the end-of-life

HEC Forum

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 27-37

  Kuczewski, Mark ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL FEEDING; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICISM; FEEDING APPARATUS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; HYDRATION; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PATIENT RIGHT; PHILOSOPHY; PHYSICIAN; POLICY; REVIEW; TIME OF DEATH; ARTICLE; CUSTODY; DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; ETHICS; FAMILY RELATION; INDIVIDUALITY; LEGAL APPROACH; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TERMINAL CARE; UNITED STATES;

DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; LEGAL APPROACH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

DECISION MAKING; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FAMILY RELATIONS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; INFORMED CONSENT; JUDGMENT; LEGAL GUARDIANS; NEW JERSEY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TERMINAL CARE; THIRD-PARTY CONSENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 3042615480     PISSN: 09562737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:HECF.0000031777.13862.33     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. In re Quinlan, 355 A2d 647; 1976 N.J.
2. nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1995, Vol. I: 371-377.
3. Dresser R. Relitigating life and death. Ohio State Law Journal, 1990; 51(2): 425-437.
4. Dresser R, Robertson J. Quality of life and non-treatment decisions for incompetent patients: A critique of the orthodox approach. Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1989; 7: 234-244.
5. Cruzan v Director, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990).
6. Annas JG, Arnold RM et al. Bioethicists' statement on the U.S. supreme court's Cruzan decision. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990; 323(10): 686-687.
7. 634 N.Y.S.2d
8. Martin v. Martin, 504 N.W.2d 917; 1993 Mich.
9. Minogue B, Reagan JE. Can complex legislation solve our end-of-life problems? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 1994; 3: 115-124.
10. Edna M.F. v. Eisenberg, 210 Wis. 2d 557; 563 N.W.2d. 485; 1997 Wisc.
11. Shapiro RS, In re Edna MF: Case law confusion in surrogate decision making. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 1999; 20: 45-54.
12. Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Cal. 4th 519; 2001.
13. nd ed. 2000 Cumulative Supplement. New York: Aspen Law & Business; 2000.
14. Tomlinson T, Howe K, Notman M, Rossmiller D. An empirical study of proxy consent for elderly persons. Gerontologist, 1990; 30: 54-64.
15. Seckler AB, Meier DE, Mulvihill M, Cammer Paris BE. Substituted judgment: How accurate are proxy predictions? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1991; 115(2): 92-98.
16. Sulmasy DP, Haller K, Terry PB. More talk, less paper: Predicting the accuracy of substituted judgments. American Journal of Medicine, 1994; 96: 432-438.
17. Lidz, CW, Appelbaum PS, Meisel A. Two models of implementing informed consent. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1988; 148: 1385-1389.
18. nd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press; 1984.
19. Sandel MJ. Liberalism and the limits of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
20. Kuczewski MG. Reconceiving the family: The process of consent in medical decision-making. Hastings Center Report, 1996; 26(2): 30-37.
21. Brody H. Transparency: Informed consent in primary care. Hastings Center Report, 1989; 19(5): 5-9.
22. Kuczewski MG. Fragmentation and consensus: communitarian and casuist bioethics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1997.
23. Tomlinson T, Howe K, Notman M, Rossmiller D. An empirical study of proxy consent for elderly persons. Gerontologist, 1990; 30: 54-64.