The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making
Abstract
This book is the most comprehensive treatment available of one of the most urgent - and yet in some respects most neglected - problems in bioethics: decision-making for incompetents. Part I develops a general theory for making treatment and care decisions for patients who are not competent to decide for themselves. It provides an in-depth analysis of competence, articulates and defends a coherent set of principles to specify suitable surrogate decisionmakers and to guide their choices, examines the value of advance directives, and investigates the role that considerations of cost ought to play in decisions concerning incompetents. Part II applies this theoretical framework to the distinctive problems of three important classes of individuals, many of whom are incompetent: minors, the elderly and psychiatric patients. The authors' approach combines a probing analysis of fundamental issues in ethical theory with a sensitive awareness of the concrete realities of health care institutions and the highly personal and individual character of difficult practical problems. Its broad scope will appeal to health professionals, moral philosophers and lawyers alike.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Buchanan and Brock [26] state that decision-making capacity is a matter of minor differences (gradual model) and competence is either present or not (threshold model).”
From Why is it hard to make progress in assessing children's decision-making competence? (2015) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McMahan, J. (2002) · doi:10.1093/0195079981.001.0001 · Cited by 1,589
Informed Consent in Decision-Making in Pediatric Practice
Katz, A. L., Webb, S. A., Macauley, R. C., Mercurio, M. R., Moon, M. R., Okun, A. L., Opel, D. J., & Statter, M. B. (2016) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1485 · Cited by 696
Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention
Diekema, D. S. (2004) · Metamedicine · doi:10.1007/s11017-004-3146-6 · Cited by 600
Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children
Diekema, D. S. (2005) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0316 · Cited by 294
Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments.
Fagerlin, A., Ditto, P. H., Danks, J. H., & Houts, R. (2001) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.20.3.166 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Buchanan, A. E., & Brock, D. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Brown University (US)
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1990-01-26
- OpenAlex
- W4241880035
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Keywords
- surrogate decision-making, competence, advance directives, minors, elderly patients, psychiatric patients, treatment decision-making, bioethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review