Cowley Christopher
School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Med Health Care Philos. 2018 Jun;21(2):255-264. doi: 10.1007/s11019-017-9801-2.
Ronald Dworkin (1993) introduced the example of Margo, who was so severely demented that she could not recognise any family or friends, and could not remember anything of her life. At the same time, however, she seemed full of childish delight. Dworkin also imagines that, before her dementia, Margo signed an advance refusal of life-saving treatment. Now severely demented, she develops pneumonia, easy to treat, but lethal if untreated. Dworkin argues that the advance refusal ought to be heeded and Margo be allowed to die of that pneumonia, on the basis that the prior refusal expresses her true wishes (her 'critical interests'). In this paper I want to challenge Dworkin's understanding of identity and his conclusion about advance refusals, and I develop my argument in two directions. First, I argue that the demented Margo is not some 'lesser' version of the 'true' Margo, but instead that the present Margo's wishes should take precedence over those of the past Margo, on the grounds that all of us are entitled to change our minds. Second, I argue for a stronger role for friends and family members in sustaining the demented Margo's identity through her years of decline. Based on this, I argue for a presumption against the advance refusal, but I allow that in extreme cases (which I describe), a friend might have the authority to demand that it be heeded.
罗纳德·德沃金(1993)引入了玛戈的例子,她患有严重痴呆,认不出任何家人或朋友,也记不起自己生活中的任何事情。然而,与此同时,她似乎充满了孩子般的喜悦。德沃金还设想,在患痴呆症之前,玛戈签署了一份预先拒绝接受救命治疗的声明。现在她严重痴呆,患上了肺炎,这种肺炎易于治疗,但如果不治疗会致命。德沃金认为,应该遵从预先拒绝声明,让玛戈死于肺炎,理由是之前的拒绝表达了她的真实意愿(她的“关键利益”)。在本文中,我想挑战德沃金对身份的理解以及他关于预先拒绝声明的结论,我将从两个方向展开论证。首先,我认为患痴呆症的玛戈并非“真正的”玛戈的某种“次要”版本,相反,当前玛戈的意愿应优先于过去玛戈的意愿,因为我们所有人都有权改变想法。其次,我主张朋友和家庭成员在玛戈多年病情恶化期间,在维系她的身份认同方面应发挥更重要的作用。基于此,我主张不应默认预先拒绝声明,但我也承认在极端情况下(我会进行描述),朋友可能有权要求遵从该声明。