Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 613–621 | Cite as

Epistemic burdens and the incentives of surrogate decision-makers

  • Parker CrutchfieldEmail author
  • Scott Scheall
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

We aim to establish the following claim: other factors held constant, the relative weights of the epistemic burdens of competing treatment options serve to determine the options that patient surrogates pursue. Simply put, surrogates confront an incentive, ceteris paribus, to pursue treatment options with respect to which their knowledge is most adequate to the requirements of the case. Regardless of what the patient would choose, options that require more knowledge than the surrogate possesses (or is likely to learn) will either be neglected altogether or deeply discounted in the surrogate’s incentive structure. We establish this claim by arguing that the relation between epistemic burdens and incentives in decision-making is a general feature of surrogate decision-making. After establishing the claim, we draw out some of the implications for surrogate decision-making in medicine and offer philosophical and psychological explanations of the phenomenon.

Keywords

Surrogate decision-making Epistemology Ignorance 

Notes

References

  1. Berger, J.T., E.G. DeRenzo, and J. Schwartz. 2008. Surrogate Decision Making: Reconciling Ethical Theory and Clinical Practice. Annals of Internal Medicine 149 (1): 48–53.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-1-200807010-00010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brudney, D. 2018. The Different Moral Bases of Patient and Surrogate Decision-Making. Hastings Center Report 48 (1): 37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan, A.E., and D.W. Brock. 1989. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making., Studies in Philosophy and Health Policy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kibbe, B., and P.J. Ford. 2016. What’s Knowledge Got to Do with It? Ethics, Epistemology, and Intractable Conflicts in the Medical Setting. The Journal of clinical ethics 27 (4): 352–358.Google Scholar
  5. Moorman, S.M., and D. Carr. 2008. Spouses’ Effectiveness as End-of-Life Health Care Surrogates: Accuracy, Uncertainty, and Errors of Overtreatment or Undertreatment. The Gerontologist 48 (6): 811–819.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/48.6.811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pope, T.M. 2012. Legal Fundamentals of Surrogate Decision Making. Chest 141 (4): 1074–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Scheall, S. forthcoming. Ignorance and the Incentive Structure confronting Policymakers. Cosmos + Taxis. Issue TBD Draft available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3240070.
  8. Scheall, S., W. Butos, and T. McQuade. 2018. Social and scientific disorder as epistemic phenomena, or the consequences of government dietary guidelines. Journal of Institutional Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137418000358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shalowitz, D.I., E. Garrett-Mayer, and D. Wendler. 2006. The Accuracy of Surrogate Decision Makers. Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (5): 493.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.5.493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Suhl, J., P. Simons, T. Reedy, et al. 1994. Myth of Substituted Judgment. Archives of Internal Medicine 154 (1): 90–96.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1994.00420010122014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medial Ethics, Humanities, and LawWestern Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of MedicineKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Social Science, College of Integrative Sciences and ArtsArizona State University Polytechnic CampusMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations