↓ Skip to main content

Substituted Judgment: The Limitations of Autonomy in Surrogate Decision Making

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Substituted Judgment: The Limitations of Autonomy in Surrogate Decision Making
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11606-008-0688-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexia M. Torke, G. Caleb Alexander, John Lantos

Abstract

Substituted judgment is often invoked as a guide for decision making when a patient lacks decision making capacity and has no advance directive. Using substituted judgment, doctors and family members try to make the decision that the patient would have made if he or she were able to make decisions. However, empirical evidence suggests that the moral basis for substituted judgment is unsound. In spite of this, many physicians and bioethicists continue to rely on the notion of substituted judgment. Given compelling evidence that the use of substituted judgment has insurmountable flaws, other approaches should be considered. One approach provides limits on decision making using a best interest standard based on community norms. A second approach uses narrative techniques and focuses on each patient's dignity and individuality rather than his or her autonomy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 42 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,340,227
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,410
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,946
of 84,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#23
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 84,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.