https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5027-9810
REFERENCES
- Broström, L., M. Johansson, and M. K. Nielsen. 2007. ‘What the patient would have decided’: A fundamental problem with the substituted judgment standard. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 10 (3):265–78. doi: 10.1007/s11019-006-9042-2.
- Buchanan, A. E., and D. W. Brock. 1989. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Earp, B. D., S. Porsdam Mann, J. Allen, S. Salloch, V. Suren, K. Jongsma, M. Braun, D. Wilkinson, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, A. Rid, et al. 2024. A personalized patient preference predictor for substituted judgments in healthcare: Technically feasible and ethically desirable. The American Journal of Bioethics 24 (7):13–26. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2296402.
- Enoch, D. 2017. Hypothetical consent and the value(s) of autonomy. Ethics 128 (1):6–36. doi: 10.1086/692939.
- Gerrek, M. L. 2018. Getting past Dax. AMA Journal of Ethics 20 (1):581–8. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.6.mhst1-1806.
- Moore, B., R. H. Nelson, P. A. Ubel, and J. Blumenthal-Barby. 2022. Two minds, one patient: Clearing up confusion about ‘ambivalence.’ The American Journal of Bioethics 22 (6):37–47. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2021.1887965.
- Raskoff, S. Z. 2022. Nudges and hard choices. Bioethics 36 (9):948–56. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13091.
- Schwan, B. 2021. Why decision-making capacity matters. Journal of Moral Philosophy 19 (5):447–73. doi: 10.1163/17455243-20213610.
- Stout, N. 2022. A mixed judgment standard for surrogate decision-making. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 47 (4):540–8. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhac016.
- Wasserman, J. A. M. C. Navin. 2018. Capacity for preferences: Respecting patients with compromised decision‐making. The Hastings Center Report 48 (3):31–9. doi: 10.1002/hast.853.