, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 235–242 | Cite as

Mind Perception and Willingness to Withdraw Life Support

  • Jeffrey M. Rudski
  • Benjamin Herbsman
  • Eric D. Quitter
  • Nicole Bilgram
Original Paper


Discussions of withdrawal of life support often revolve around a patient’s perceived level of suffering or lack of experience. Personhood, however, is often linked to personal agency (e.g., self-control, ability to plan). In the present study, 279 laypeople estimated the amount of agency and experience in hypothetical patients differing in degree of consciousness. Participants also indicated whether they would choose to maintain or terminate life support. Patients were more likely to terminate life support for a patient in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), followed by one with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and in a minimally conscious state (MCS). The decision to maintain life support was reliably predicted by perceptions of a patient’s agency but life support decisions were not significantly predicted by ratings of experience. In sum, decisions regarding maintaining life support are more influenced by perceptions of a patient’s ability to plan and act than by perceptions of a patient’s ability to feel or experience.


Mind perception Withdrawal of treatment Agency Minimally conscious state Persistent vegetative state Experience Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 


  1. 1.
    Perry, David. 2001. Ethics and Personhood: Some Issues in Contemporary Neurological Science and Technology. Santa Clara University. Retrieved from Accessed January 9, 2016.
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. 2013. The top 10 causes of death. Accessed January 9, 2016.
  3. 3.
    Farah, Martha J. 2013. Personhood, consciousness, and severe brain damage. In Neuroethics in Practice: Medicine, Mind and Society, eds. Annan Chatterjee, and Martha Farah, 175–186. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilson, Samuel, and Nick Haslam. 2012. Reasoning about human enhancement: towards a folk psychological model of human nature and human identity. In Handbook of research on Technoself, ed. Rocci Luppicini, 175–188. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schick, Theodore Jr., and Lewis Vaughn. 2012. The definition of death. In Doing Philosophy: An Introduction Through Thought Experiments, 5 edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernat, James L. 2006. The whole-brain concept of death remains optimum public policy. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34: 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veatch, Robert. 1993. The impending collapse of the whole-brain definition of death. Hastings Center Report 23: 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McMahan, Jeff. 1998. Brain death, cortical death, and persistent vegetative state. In A companion to bioethics, eds. Helga Kuhse, and Peter Singer, 250–260. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shewmon, D. Alan. 2009. Brain death: can it be resuscitated? Hastings Center Report 39: 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernat, James L. 2014. There can be agreement as to what constitutes human death. In Contemporary debates in bioethics, eds. Arthur L. Caplan, and Robert Arp, 377–387. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nicholas, Epley, and Adam Waytz. 2009. Mind perception. In The handbook of social psychology, 5th edn, eds. Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 498–541. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gray, Heather M., Kurt Gray, and Daniel M. Wegner. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315: 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demertzi, A., et al. 2011. Attitudes towards end-of-life issues in disorders of consciousness: a European survey. Journal of Neurology 258(6): 1058–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hodges, Marion O., Susan W. Tolle, Carol Stocking, and Christine K. Cassel. 1994. Tube feeding. Internists’ attitudes regarding ethical obligations. Archives of Internal Medicine 154: 1013–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Payne, Kirk, Robert M. Taylor, Carol Stocking, and Greg A. Sachs. 1996. Physicians’ attitudes about the care of patients in the persistent vegetative state: a national survey. Annals of Internal Medicine 125: 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gipson, Jacob, Guy Kahane, and Julian Savulescu. 2014. Attitudes of lay people to withdrawal of treatment in brain damaged patients. Neuroethics 7: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haslam, Nick, Brock Bastian, Simon Laham, and Stephen Loughnan. 2012. Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology. In The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil, eds. Mario Mikulincer, and Phillip R. Shaver, 203–218. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kant, Immanuel. 1785/1998. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waytz, Adam, Kurt Gray, Nicholas Epley, and Daniel M. Wegner. 2010. Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 383–388.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Judt, Tony. 2010. Night. The New York Review of Books. Downloaded from June 10, 2016.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wegner, Daniel M., and Kurt Gray. 2016. The Mind Club. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kahane, Guy, and Julian Savulescu. 2009. Brain damage and the moral significance of consciousness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34: 6–26.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laureys, Steven. 2005. Death unconsciousness and the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 899–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brickman, Philip, and Dan Coates. 1978. Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 917–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Glannon, Walter. 2013. Prognosis matters, not diagnosis. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 4: 34–35.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katja Kuehlmeyer, Nicole Palmour, Richard J. Riopelle, James L. Bernat, Ralf J. Jox, and Eric Racine. 2014. Physicians’ attitudes toward medical and ethical challenges for patients in the vegetative state: comparing Canadian and German perspectives in a vignette survey. BMC Neurology, 14:119 Accessed January 8, 2016.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson, Kimberly S., I. Katja, and James A. Tulsky. 2005. The influence of spiritual beliefs and practices on the treatment preferences of African Americans: a review of the literature. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53: 711–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wijdicks, Telco F. 2001. The diagnosis of brain death. New England Journal of Medicine 344: 1215–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ojalehto, Bethany, Douglas L. Medin, and Garcia G. Salino. 2015. Agency concepts across cultures: how intuitive is folkpsychology? In Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, eds. David C. Noelle, Rick Dale, Anne S. Warlaumont, Jeff Yoshimi, Teenie Matlock, Carolyn D. Jennings, and Paul Maglio, 1763–1768. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gomes, Anil, Matthew Parrott, and Joshua Shepherd. 2015. More dead than dead? Attributing Mentality to Vegetative State Patients. Philosophical Psychology: 1–12. doi:10.1080/09515089.2015.1048328.
  31. 31.
    Paolacci, Gabriele, and Jesse Chandler. 2014. Inside the turk: understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23: 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pew Research Center. 2013. Views on End-of-Life Medical Treatments. Accessed January 9, 2016.
  33. 33.
    Samuelson, William, and Richard Zeckhauser. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnstone, Megan-Jane. 2013. Alzheimer’s Disease, Media Representations and the Politics of Euthanasia. Burlington VT: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Truog, Robert D. 2008. End-of-life decision-making in the United States. European Journal of Anesthesiology 25(Suppl 42): 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey M. Rudski
    • 1
  • Benjamin Herbsman
    • 2
  • Eric D. Quitter
    • 2
  • Nicole Bilgram
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMuhlenberg CollegeAllentownUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeuroscienceMuhlenberg CollegeAllentownUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiochemistryMuhlenberg CollegeAllentownUSA

Personalised recommendations