| Title |
Autism, intellectual disability, and a challenge to our understanding of proxy consent
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-016-9745-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abraham Graber |
| Abstract |
This paper focuses on a hypothetical case that represents an intervention request familiar to those who work with individuals with intellectual disability. Stacy has autism and moderate intellectual disability. Her parents have requested treatment for her hand flapping. Stacy is not competent to make her own treatment decisions; proxy consent is required. There are three primary justifications for proxy consent: the right to an open future, substituted judgment, and the best interest standard. The right to an open future justifies proxy consent on the assumption of future autonomy whereas substituted judgment justifies proxy consent via reference to past autonomy. Neither applies. Stacy has not been, nor will she be, competent to make her own treatment decisions. The best interest standard justifies proxy consent on the grounds of beneficence. It is unlikely that hand flapping harms Stacy. None of the three primary means of justifying proxy consent apply to Stacy's case. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,438,674
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#397
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,516
of 321,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.