Edwards Craig
University of Western Australia.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2011 Dec;21(4):349-78. doi: 10.1353/ken.2011.0017.
Philosophers have mostly advocated that advance directives should bear the same authority, with regard to refusal of life-extending treatment, as a patient's contemporaneous consent or refusal. Such authors typically support this position through a theory of persistent personal identity. I agree that the loss of mental competence does not render someone a moral stranger to their prior goal but argue that equating advance direction with consent is to ignore the capacity of nonpersons to attribute and withhold moral value. A distinction should be drawn between advance directives that seek to pursue deeply held goals and those that express contempt for the mentally incompetent.
哲学家大多主张,就拒绝延长生命的治疗而言,预先指示应具有与患者当下同意或拒绝相同的权威性。这类作者通常通过持续个人身份理论来支持这一立场。我同意精神能力的丧失并不会使一个人与他们先前的目标成为道德上的陌生人,但我认为将预先指示等同于同意是忽视了无行为能力者赋予和保留道德价值的能力。应该区分旨在追求深层目标的预先指示和那些表达对无行为能力者蔑视的预先指示。