Skip to main content
Log in

Advance directives for clinical research in dementia

Some ethical and policy considerations

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
The Italian Journal of Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“... the obsessed curiosity in our nature, spilling her time by anticipating future matters, as if it is not sufficient to cope with present matters...” Michel de Montaigne, Essays

Abstract

In this paper the author raises a number of general and specific doubts concerning the employment of advance directives in clinical research.

From a general point of view, they are little used even in the countries in which they are legally recognised. From the specific point of view of the demented patient, the profoundly regressive personality changes during the course of the disease make it difficult to believe that there is a continuity between the person who expressed precise opinions when he was in good health or only slightly affected and the same person in an advanced phase of the disease. Especially in non-therapeutic studies, in which any benefit to participants is missing, the author's opinion is that the directly expressed consent of the participants should be absolutely required.

Sommario

In questo articolo vengono sollevate numerose perplessità riguardanti l'utilizzo delle direttive anticipate nella ricerca clinica. Da un punto di vista generale viene sottolineato il loro scarso utilizzo anche nei paesi nei quali sono legalmente riconosciute, da un punto di vista specifico della condizione del paziente demente si rimarca, considerate le modificazioni regressive della personalità che intervengono nella malattia, la possibilità che esista una netta discontinuità tra colui che ha espresso delle opzioni prima di ammalarsi o in fasi iniziali di malattia e l'individuo in fase ormai conclamata.

Viene anche contestato il loro possibile utilizzo nelle ricerche non terapeutiche, dove, mancando un possibile beneficio per chi vi si presta, si ritiene necessario un consenso espresso direttamente dal paziente.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dworkin R. Life's dominion. An argument about abortion and euthanasia. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dresser RB &JA Robertson.Quality of life and nontreatment decisions for incompetent patients: a critique of the orthodox approach. Law, Medicine & Health Care, 1989; 17: 234–244.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Miller BL.Autonomy and proxy consent. In: Melnick VL and Dubler NN (Eds.), Alzheimer's dementia: dilemmas in clinical research. Clifton, New Jersey: Humana Press, 1985; p. 239–263.

    Google Scholar 

  4. American College of Physicians.Cognitively impaired subjects. (Position paper) Ann Int Medicine, 111, 10, 1989; p. 843–848.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Keyserling EW, Glass K, Kogan S, Gauthier S.Proposed guidelines for the participation of persons with dementia as research subjects. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1995; 38, 2: 319–362.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sachs GA, Stocking CB et al.Ethical aspects of dementia research: informed consent and proxy consent. Clinical Research, 1994, 42, 3: 403–412.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lauter H.Ethics of research with demented patients. In: Bergener M, Brocklehurst JC and Finkel SI (Eds.), Aging, health, and healing. Springer Publishing Company, New York, 1995; 522–542.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dresser RB.Mentally disabled research subjects. The enduring policy issues. JAMA, 1996; 276, 1: 67–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Council of Europe, Directorate of Legal Affairs.Draft convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Strasbourg, June 1996.

  10. Sachs GA.Advance consent for dementia research. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 1994a; 8, supplement 4, 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Elliott C &B Elliot.From the patient's point of view: medical ethics and the moral imagination. J Med Ethics, 1991; 17: 173–178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parfit D.Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 194.

  13. Dworkin R.Autonomy and the demented self. The Milbank Quarterly, 64, suppl. II, 1986a; 4–16.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dworkin R.Philosophical issues in senile dementia. Report to the Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, D.C., 1986b.

  15. Dresser R.Dworkin on dementia. Elegant theory, questionable policy. Hastings Center Report. 1995; 25, 6: 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Buchanan AE & DW Brock, Deciding for others.The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Berghmans RLP.The double standard: comparison of ethical problems and standards in research and practice with demented patients. In: M. Bergener, J.C. Brocklehurst & S.I. Finkel (Eds.), Aging, health, and healing. Springer Publishing Company, New York, 1995; p. 511–521.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sachs GA, Stocking CB andMiles SH.Empowerment of the older patient? A randomized, controlled trial to increase discussion and use of advance directives. J Am Geriatrics Society, 1992; 40, 3: 269–273.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Menikoff JA, Sachs GA andSiegler M.Beyond advance directives — Health care surrogate laws. N Engl J Med, 1992; 327, 16: 1165–1169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rubin SM, Strukk WM et al.Increasing the completion of the durable power of attorney for health care. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 1994; 271, 3: 209–212.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sachs GA.Increasing the prevalence of advance care planning. Hastings Center Report, Special Supplement, November–December 1994b; 13–16.

  22. High DM.Advance directives and the elderly: a study of intervention strategies to increase use. Gerontologist, 1993; 33: 342–349.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jonas H.Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. In: Beachamp TL & Walters LR (Eds.), Contemporary issues in bioethics. 3rd ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1989; p. 432–440.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Professor of Medical Ethics, Limburg University Center, Diepenbeek, Belgium

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berghmans, R.L.P. Advance directives for clinical research in dementia. Ital J Neuro Sci 18 (Suppl 5), 29–33 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02048204

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02048204

Key words

Navigation