| Literature DB >> 11652014 |
Abstract
Mark Wicclair criticizes Allen Buchanan's and my claim that determining an appropriate level of competence (Wicclair substitutes "decisional capacity" for "competence", the import of which I note briefly below) for health care treatment decisionmaking involves balancing respecting a patient's self-determination and protecting his or her well-being. The most important implication of this balancing is that a standard of competence should vary in significant part with the effects for the patient's well-being of accepting his or her choice. Wicclair's criticisms take two main forms. First, he considers and rejects four of the positive reasons we offer in support of a risk-related standard. Second, in rejecting our fourth reason he argues that a risk-related standard leads to faulty competence determinations -- too high a standard in some cases and too low a standard in others. If he is correct, there are no positive reasons for adopting a risk-related standard and there are as well specific reasons not to adopt such a standard in order to avoid mistaken competence determinations. My response will address both sorts of criticisms in turn.Entities:
Keywords: Analytical Approach; Philosophical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship
Mesh:
Year: 1991 PMID: 11652014 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1991.tb00151.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioethics ISSN: 0269-9702 Impact factor: 1.898