Berghmans R L
Institute for Bioethics, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J Med Ethics. 1998 Feb;24(1):32-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.24.1.32.
This paper explores the use of advance directives in clinical dementia research. The focus is on advance consent to participation of demented patients in non-therapeutic research involving more than minimal risks and/or burdens. First, morally relevant differences between advance directives for treatment and care, and advance directives for dementia research are discussed. Then attention is paid to the philosophical issue of dementia and personal identity, and the implications for the moral authority of research advance directives. Thirdly, a number of practical shortcomings of advance directives for non-therapeutic dementia research are explored and attention is paid to the role of proxies. It is concluded that upon a closer look the initial attractiveness of advance directives for dementia research is lessened, and that it is doubtful whether these instruments can compensate for the lack of subject consent in case of non-therapeutic dementia research involving more than minimal risks and/or burdens for the incompetent demented subject.
本文探讨了预立医嘱在临床痴呆症研究中的应用。重点在于痴呆患者预先同意参与涉及超过最小风险和/或负担的非治疗性研究。首先,讨论了治疗和护理预立医嘱与痴呆症研究预立医嘱在道德上的相关差异。接着关注痴呆症与个人身份的哲学问题,以及对研究预立医嘱道德权威的影响。第三,探讨了非治疗性痴呆症研究预立医嘱的一些实际缺陷,并关注代理人的作用。得出的结论是,仔细审视后,痴呆症研究预立医嘱最初的吸引力有所降低,而且对于这些手段能否在涉及无行为能力痴呆受试者超过最小风险和/或负担的非治疗性痴呆症研究中弥补受试者同意的缺失,存在疑问。