Crutchfield Parker, Scheall Scott
Medial Ethics, Humanities, and Law, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA.
Faculty of Social Science, College of Integrative Sciences and Arts, Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus, Santa Catalina Hall, 250A, 7271 E Sonoran Arroyo Mall, Mesa, AZ, 85212, USA.
Med Health Care Philos. 2019 Dec;22(4):613-621. doi: 10.1007/s11019-019-09899-2.
We aim to establish the following claim: other factors held constant, the relative weights of the epistemic burdens of competing treatment options serve to determine the options that patient surrogates pursue. Simply put, surrogates confront an incentive, ceteris paribus, to pursue treatment options with respect to which their knowledge is most adequate to the requirements of the case. Regardless of what the patient would choose, options that require more knowledge than the surrogate possesses (or is likely to learn) will either be neglected altogether or deeply discounted in the surrogate's incentive structure. We establish this claim by arguing that the relation between epistemic burdens and incentives in decision-making is a general feature of surrogate decision-making. After establishing the claim, we draw out some of the implications for surrogate decision-making in medicine and offer philosophical and psychological explanations of the phenomenon.
在其他因素保持不变的情况下,相互竞争的治疗方案的认知负担的相对权重有助于确定患者代理人所追求的方案。简而言之,在其他条件相同的情况下,代理人面临一种激励,即追求那些其知识最足以满足该病例要求的治疗方案。无论患者会作何选择,那些需要比代理人所拥有(或可能学到)的知识更多的方案,要么会被完全忽视,要么在代理人的激励结构中被大幅低估。我们通过论证认知负担与决策激励之间的关系是代理人决策的一个普遍特征来确立这一主张。确立该主张后,我们阐述了其对医学中代理人决策的一些影响,并对这一现象提供了哲学和心理学解释。