ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2025
Research Advance Directives: Ethical Implications for Persons with Alzheimer's Disease, and for the Families of Elderly Dementia Patients.
Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As both human longevity and diagnostic ability improve, more individuals are being diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia disease (Alzheimer's). Yet there is a paucity of new Alzheimer's research trials. One obstacle to research is the large number of Alzheimer's patients deemed incapable of providing informed consent for clinical research. Research advance directives (RADs) offer patients the opportunity to provide informed consent before incapacity occurs. However, critics question whether RADs guarantee informed consent, claiming that due to the nature of the disease, the consenting agent is no longer the same person after becoming incapacitated. This paper assesses the debate while using a conception of personhood, informed by the latest Alzheimer's research, which does not reduce the concept of personhood to psychological capacities. It explains how personal identity can persist despite Alzheimer's, such that RADs can and should suffice for informed consent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.