Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:19:13.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: A Case of Too Much Maternalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2014

Maura George  and
Jason Lesandrini
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Ethics Committees and Consultants at Work
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 234 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Berger, JT. Patients’ interests in their family members’ well-being: An overlooked, fundamental consideration within substituted judgments. Journal of Clinical Ethics 2005;16(1):3–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Novack, DH, Detering, BJ, Arnold, R, Forrow, L, Ladinsky, M, Pezzullo, JC. Physicians’ attitudes toward using deception to resolve difficult ethical problems. JAMA 1989;261(20): 2980–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Bloche, MG. Fidelity and deceit at the bedside. JAMA 2000;283(14):1881–4, at 1884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Ho, A. Relational autonomy or undue pressure? Family’s role in medical decision-making. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science 2008;22(1):128–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. American Medical Association. Principles of Medical Ethics; 2013; available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page (last accessed 26 Sept 2013).

6. See note 4, Ho 2008, at 130.

7. Berger, JT. What about process? Limitations in advance directives, care planning, and noncapacitated decision making. American Journal of Bioethics 2010;10(4):33–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. See note 7, Berger 2010, at 34.

9. See note 7, Berger 2010, at 33.

10. Rid, A, Wendler, D. Can we improve treatment decision-making for incapacitated patients? Hastings Center Report 2010;40(5):36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. See note 1, Berger 2005.

12. Jennings, B, Wolf, SM, Berlinge, N. The Hastings Center Guidelines for Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment and Care Near the End of Life. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013, at 52.Google Scholar

13. Berger, JT, DeRenzo, EG, Schwartz, J. Surrogate decision making: Reconciling ethical theory and clinical practice. Annals of Internal Medicine 2008;149(1):48–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. See note 13, Berger et al. 2008.

15. Quill, TE, Arnold, R, Back, AL. Discussing treatment preferences with patients who want “everything.” Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;151(5):345–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. See note 4, Ho 2008.