oop

What are the two values discussed by Brudney and Lantos as grounds for patient choice? [Brudney & Lantos]

Agency (the capacity to make one's own decisions) and authenticity (living in accordance with one’s deep values or character).

Why do Brudney and Lantos argue that authenticity may be more important than agency in some cases? [Brudney & Lantos]

Because decisions made under conditions like dementia may still reflect a patient's enduring values even if they lack current decision-making capacity.

How do Brudney and Lantos critique a narrow view of autonomy in medicine? [Brudney & Lantos]

They argue it overlooks the importance of the patient's life narrative and identity, which can continue even in impaired states.

What is Schwartz’s central claim about autonomy in medicine? [Schwartz]

Autonomy does not grant patients the right to demand any treatment they want, especially if it lies outside the proper scope of medicine.

What are Schwartz’s three limits on patient autonomy in healthcare decisions? [Schwartz]

1. Patients can't demand non-medical treatments. 2. They can't demand scientifically futile treatments. 3. They can't demand treatments outside the goals of medicine.

What was the key ethical issue in the Wanglie case according to Schwartz? [Schwartz]

Whether continued life-sustaining treatment was among the reasonable medical alternatives, or beyond the scope of medicine.

Why does Schwartz criticize courts for focusing only on substituted judgment in the Wanglie case? [Schwartz]

Because the real issue was whether the requested treatment should be considered medicine at all—not who was best to apply the patient's values.

What ethical frameworks were in conflict in the Charlie Gard case? [Shah et al.]

The best interest standard and parental autonomy, with courts favoring the former and critics favoring the harm principle.

What is the best interest standard, and how was it used in Charlie Gard’s case? [Shah et al.]

It’s a legal and ethical standard for making decisions on behalf of children; it was used to justify court intervention and deny experimental treatment.

Why do Shah et al. critique the best interest standard? [Shah et al.]

It is too subjective and value-laden to justify overriding parental choices, especially in ambiguous or experimental contexts.

What is the harm principle and how does it differ from the best interest standard? [Shah et al.]

The harm principle allows state intervention only when parental choices pose a significant risk of serious harm, allowing more room for parental discretion.

Why is medical futility not a reliable guide in cases like Charlie Gard’s? [Shah et al.]

Because what counts as futile depends on the goals of care—keeping a child alive vs. curing them—so it cannot resolve value-based disagreements.