The ability to value: An additional criterion for decision-making capacity.

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-12-16 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13387
Lauren Harcarik, Scott Y H Kim, Joseph Millum
{"title":"The ability to value: An additional criterion for decision-making capacity.","authors":"Lauren Harcarik, Scott Y H Kim, Joseph Millum","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the United States, the dominant model of decision-making capacity (DMC) is the \"four abilities model,\" which judges DMC according to four criteria: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and communicating a choice. Some critics argue that this model is \"too cognitive\" because it ignores the role of emotions and values in decision-making. But so far there is no consensus about how to incorporate such factors into a model of DMC while still ensuring that patients with unusual or socially disapproved values still have their autonomous decisions respected. In this paper, we aim to give an account of the role of values in decision-making which can answer some of the lingering questions about capacity. In the current literature, defenders of the inclusion of values in DMC tend to propose solutions which focus on the distorted or incoherent attributes of the values themselves. We argue that shifting the focus onto valuing as an ability is a better solution and that a complete picture of capacity includes understanding, appreciation, reasoning, communicating a choice, and the ability to value. On the basis of a conceptual analysis of the necessary conditions for autonomous decision-making, we derive a conception of the ability to value. On our account, the ability to value has four components: the possession of values, the ability to access those values, the ability to engage in practical reasoning with one's values, and the ability to act on the result of that reasoning. We describe the positive components of the ability to value, some indicators of impairment, and some implications of our account.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13387","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the United States, the dominant model of decision-making capacity (DMC) is the "four abilities model," which judges DMC according to four criteria: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and communicating a choice. Some critics argue that this model is "too cognitive" because it ignores the role of emotions and values in decision-making. But so far there is no consensus about how to incorporate such factors into a model of DMC while still ensuring that patients with unusual or socially disapproved values still have their autonomous decisions respected. In this paper, we aim to give an account of the role of values in decision-making which can answer some of the lingering questions about capacity. In the current literature, defenders of the inclusion of values in DMC tend to propose solutions which focus on the distorted or incoherent attributes of the values themselves. We argue that shifting the focus onto valuing as an ability is a better solution and that a complete picture of capacity includes understanding, appreciation, reasoning, communicating a choice, and the ability to value. On the basis of a conceptual analysis of the necessary conditions for autonomous decision-making, we derive a conception of the ability to value. On our account, the ability to value has four components: the possession of values, the ability to access those values, the ability to engage in practical reasoning with one's values, and the ability to act on the result of that reasoning. We describe the positive components of the ability to value, some indicators of impairment, and some implications of our account.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在美国,决策能力(DMC)的主流模式是 "四种能力模式",该模式根据四种标准来评判决策能力:理解能力、鉴赏能力、推理能力和沟通选择能力。一些批评者认为,这种模式 "过于认知",因为它忽视了情感和价值观在决策中的作用。但迄今为止,对于如何将这些因素纳入 DMC 模型,同时确保具有不寻常或社会不认可的价值观的患者的自主决定仍然得到尊重,还没有达成共识。在本文中,我们旨在阐述价值观在决策中的作用,从而回答关于行为能力的一些悬而未决的问题。在目前的文献中,将价值观纳入 DMC 的辩护者倾向于提出一些解决方案,这些方案侧重于价值观本身的扭曲或不一致属性。我们认为,将重点转移到作为一种能力的估价上是一种更好的解决方案,能力的完整图景包括理解、鉴赏、推理、沟通选择以及估价能力。在对自主决策的必要条件进行概念分析的基础上,我们得出了一种估价能力的概念。根据我们的观点,估价能力由四个部分组成:拥有价值观、获取这些价值观的能力、对自己的价值观进行实际推理的能力以及根据推理结果采取行动的能力。我们将描述价值观能力的积极组成部分、一些受损指标以及我们的观点的一些影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
期刊最新文献
Bioethical challenges in postwar development aid: The Rwandan case study. A defense of ectogenic abortion. Medical test and employee's autonomy. Confidentiality of data and non-discrimination. Corrigendum Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1