DeGrazia David
Bioethics. 1995 Jan;9(1):50-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00300.x.
The idea of a patient's best interests raises issues in prudential value theory -- the study of what makes up an individual's ultimate (nonmoral) good or well-being. While this connection may strike a philosopher as obvious, the literature on the best interests standard reveals almost no engagement of recent work in value theory. There seems to be a growing sentiment among bioethicists that their work is independent of philosophical theorizing. Is this sentiment wrong in the present case? Does value theory make a significant difference in interpreting best interests? In pursuing this question, I begin with a quick sketch of broad kinds of value theories, identifying representatives that are plausible enough to count as contenders. I then explore what each account suggests in (1) neonatal treatment decisions, and (2) decisions for patients in persistent vegetative states. I conclude that while these accounts converge somewhat in their interpretations of best interests, they also have importantly different implications.
患者的最佳利益这一概念在审慎价值理论中引发了诸多问题,审慎价值理论是研究构成个人最终(非道德)善或福祉的因素的学科。虽然这种联系在哲学家看来可能显而易见,但关于最佳利益标准的文献几乎没有涉及价值理论的近期研究成果。生物伦理学家中似乎有一种日益增长的观点,即他们的工作独立于哲学理论构建。在当前这种情况下,这种观点是否错误呢?价值理论在解释最佳利益方面是否会产生重大影响呢?在探讨这个问题时,我首先简要概述一下各种宽泛的价值理论,确定那些足够合理、可被视为竞争者的代表理论。然后我将探究每种理论在以下两方面所暗示的内容:(1)新生儿治疗决策,以及(2)针对持续性植物状态患者的决策。我的结论是,虽然这些理论在对最佳利益的解释上有一定程度的趋同,但它们也有着重要的不同含义。