VALUE THEORY AND THE BEST INTERESTS STANDARD

被引:43
作者
DEGRAZIA, D
机构
[1] Department of Philosophy, The George Washington University
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00300.x
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The idea of a patient's best interests raises issues in prudential value theory - the study of what makes up an individual's ultimate (nonmoral) good or well-being. While this connection may strike a philosopher as obvious, the literature on the best interests standard reveals almost no engagement of recent work in value theory. There seems to be a growing sentiment among bioethicists that their work is independent of philosophical theorizing. Is this sentiment wrong in the present case? Does value theory make a significant difference in interpreting best interests? In pursuing this question, I begin with a quick sketch of broad kinds of value theories, identifying representatives that are plausible enough to count as contenders. I then explore what each account suggests in (1) neonatal treatment decisions, and (2) decisions for patients in persistent vegetative states. I conclude that while these accounts converge somewhat in their interpretations of best interests, they also have importantly different implications.
引用
收藏
页码:50 / 61
页数:12
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1974, ANARCHY STATE UTOPIA
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1985, ETHICS LIMITS PHILOS
[3]  
ARRAS J, 1989, ETHICAL ISSUES MODER, P135
[5]   GETTING DOWN TO CASES - THE REVIVAL OF CASUISTRY IN BIOETHICS [J].
ARRAS, JD .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY, 1991, 16 (01) :29-51
[6]  
BAIER A, 1985, PASTURES MIND
[7]  
BEAUCHAMP TL, 1989, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
[8]  
BRANDT R, 1979, THEORY GOOD RIGHT
[9]  
Brock D., 1993, QUALITY LIFE, P95, DOI DOI 10.1093/0198287976.003.0009
[10]  
BUCHANAN A, 1986, MILBANK Q S2, V64, P73