Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37171523›Full record

ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2023

Why we have duties of autonomy towards marginal agents.

Anna Hirsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anna HirschInstitute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Lessingstr. 2, D-80336, München, Germany. Anna.Hirsch@lmu.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2115-918X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients are usually granted autonomy rights, including the right to consent to or refuse treatment. These rights are commonly attributed to patients if they fulfil certain conditions. For example, a patient must sufficiently understand the information given to them before making a treatment decision. On the one hand, there is a large group of patients who meet these conditions. On the other hand, there is a group that clearly does not meet these conditions, including comatose patients or patients in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease. Then there is a group of patients who fall into the range in between. At the lower end of this range are so-called 'marginal agents,' which include young children and patients in the middle stages of Alzheimer's disease. They also do not meet the typical requirements for autonomy, which is why they are usually granted fewer autonomy rights. However, some of them are capable of 'pre-forms' of autonomy that express what is important to them. These pre-forms differ from mere desires and reflect the identification/authenticity condition of autonomy. They have something in common with autonomous attitudes, choices, and actions - namely, they express the value of autonomy. As I will argue, autonomy is a value worthy of protection and promotion - even in its non-reflexive forms. Against this background, it becomes clear why we have autonomy duties, more precisely positive, autonomy-enabling duties, towards marginal agents and why we should give them as much attention as autonomy duties towards competent patients.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseChildChild, PreschoolDecision MakingHumansPersonal AutonomyAutonomyAutonomy rightsCaring attitudesMarginal agentsValue of autonomy

Identifiers

PMID37171523
PMCPMC10564671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.