Brett A S
Program in Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
JAMA. 1991 Aug 14;266(6):825-8.
Recent events, including the Cruzan decision and the passage of the Patient Self-Determination Act, have renewed interest in the strengths and limitations of various types of advance directives. In one well-known approach, the competent person indicates preferences for or against a series of specific medical interventions that might be considered if the person loses decision-making capacity. However, such lists of interventions may shift attention away from overall treatment goals or may prescribe inappropriate medical care. Moreover, listing specific interventions in advance does not necessarily enhance self-determination or reduce uncertainty in decision making.
近期发生的一些事件,包括“克鲁赞案”的判决以及《患者自我决定法案》的通过,重新引发了人们对各类预先指示的优势与局限性的关注。在一种广为人知的方式中,具备行为能力的人表明其对一系列特定医疗干预措施支持或反对的偏好,这些措施可能在其丧失决策能力时被考虑采用。然而,此类干预措施清单可能会使人们的注意力从总体治疗目标上转移,或者规定不恰当的医疗护理。此外,预先列出具体的干预措施并不一定会增强自我决定权,也不一定能减少决策中的不确定性。