| Title |
A Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Effects of Triggering Conditions on Surrogate Decision-Making in End-of-Life Care in the US
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEC Forum, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10730-015-9279-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Clint Parker, Daniel S. Goldberg |
| Abstract |
The central claim of this paper is that American states' use of so-called "triggering conditions" to regulate surrogate decision-making authority in end-of-life care leaves unresolved a number of important ethical and legal considerations regarding the scope of that authority. The paper frames the issue with a case set in a jurisdiction in which surrogate authority to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is triggered by two specific clinical conditions. The case presents a quandary insofar as the clinical facts do not satisfy the triggering conditions, and yet both the appropriate surrogates and the care team agree that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is in the best interest of the patient. The paper surveys applicable law across the 50 states and weighs the arguments for and against the inclusion of such triggering conditions in relevant legal regimes. The paper concludes by assessing the various legal and policy options states have for regulating surrogate decision-making authority in light of the moral considerations (including epistemic difficulties), and notes the possibility for conflict within ethics teams arising from the potential tension between prudence, risk-aversion, and moral obligation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 20% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 17% |
| Psychology | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,864,142
of 24,717,692 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#98
of 197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,303
of 269,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 269,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them