Search

Advance directives entail a refusal expressed by a still-healthy patient. Three consequences stem from that fact: (a) advance refusal is unspecific, since it is impossible to predict what the patient's conditions and the risk-benefit ratio may be in the foreseeable future; (b) those decisions cannot be as well informed as those formulated while the disease is in progress; (c) while both current consent and refusal can be revoked as the disease unfolds, until the treatment starts out, advance directives become effective when the patient becomes incapable or unconscious; such decisions can therefore not be revoked at any stage of the disease. Therefore, advance directives are binding for doctors only at the stage of advance treatment planning, i.e., only if they refer to an illness already in progress.

Some authors have questioned the moral authority of advance directives (ADs) in cases in which it is not clear if the author of the AD is identical to the person to whom it later applies. This article focuses on the question of whether the latest results of neuroimaging studies have moral significance with regard to the moral authority of ADs in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOCs). Some neuroimaging findings could provide novel insights into the question of whether patients with DOCs exhibit sufficient psychological continuity to be ascribed diachronic personal identity. If those studies were to indicate that psychological continuity is present, they could justify the moral authority of ADs in patients with DOCs. This holds at least if respect for self-determination is considered as the foundation for the moral authority of ADs. The non-identity thesis in DOCs could no longer be applied, in line with clinical and social practice.

Background: Although advance directives may seem useful instruments in decision-making regarding incompetent patients, their validity in cases of dementia has been a much debated subject and little is known about their effectiveness in practice. This paper assesses the contribution of advance directives to decision-making in the care of people with dementia, with a special focus on non-treatment directives and directives for euthanasia., Methods: The relevant problems from the ethical debate on advance directives in cases of dementia are summarized and we discuss how these relate to what is known from empirical research on the validity and effectiveness of advance directives in the clinical practice of dementia care., Results: The ethical debate focuses essentially on how to respond to the current wishes of a patient with dementia if these contradict the patient's wishes contained in an advance directive. The (very limited) empirical data show that the main factors in medical decision-making in such cases is not the patient's perspective but the medical judgment of the physician and the influence of relatives. Insight into the experiences and wishes of people with dementia regarding advance directives is totally lacking in empirical research., Conclusions: Ethics and actual practice are two "different worlds" when it comes to approaching advance directives in cases of dementia. It is clear, however, that the use of advance directives in practice remains problematic, above all in cases of advance euthanasia directives, but to a lesser extent also when non-treatment directives are involved. Although generally considered valid, their effectiveness seems marginal. Further empirical research into the (potential) value of advance directives in dementia care is recommended.