Introduction to the Issue of Proxy Consent

Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 112)

Abstract

In brief, an immediate need for proxies arises when patients or research subjects are unable to give their own meaningful and legally valid informed consent because of insufficient or compromised competence or the complete lack thereof. This point of view has been endorsed by all of the human-rights documents examined in the second chapter except for the Nuremberg Code. Accordingly, proxy consent is required unless a consent exception is legitimated and validated by an emergency or other compelling factors as described above.

Keywords

Advance Directive Advance Care Planning Presume Consent Proxy Consent Nuremberg Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ashley, B. M., and K. D. O’Rourke. 1997. Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, J. W., P. S. Appelbaum, Ch. W. Lidz, and L. S. Parker. 2001. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice (2nd ed.). Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fischer, G. S., J. A. Tulsky, and R. M. Arnold. 2004. “Advance Directives and Advance Care Planning.” In Encyclopedia of Bioethics, edited by S. G. Post, 74–79. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
  4. Kim, S. Y. H., and P. S. Appelbaum. 2006. “The Capacity to Appoint a Proxy and the Possibility of Concurrent Proxy Directives.” Behavioral Science & the Law 24:469–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Levine, R. J. 2003b. “Research and Practice.” In Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary, edited by E. J. Emanuel, R. A. Crouch, J. D. Arras, J. D. Moreno, and Ch. Grady, 103–107. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. May, W. E. 2007. “Proxy Consent for Nontherapeutic Experimentation.” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 7(2):239–47.Google Scholar
  7. Morris, M. C., and R. Nelson. 2007. “Randomized Controlled Trials as Minimal Risk: An Ethical Analysis.” Critical Care Medicine 35(3):940–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Rourke, K. D. 2006. “The Embryo as Person.” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6(1):241–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Schaffner, K. F. 2004. “Research Methodology. Conceptual Issues.” In Encyclopedia of Bioethics, edited by S. G. Post, 2326–47. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
  10. Veatch, R. 2003. The Basics of Bioethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. “Attorney, Power Of”. 2008. In Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite Edition.Google Scholar
  12. “Surrogate”. 2002. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged [On-line] Accessed August 8, 2008. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dominican College of Philosophy and TheologyKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations