IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i4p623-630.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A changing landscape for advance directives in dementia research

Author

Listed:
  • Pierce, Robin

Abstract

The number of persons afflicted by dementia has increased steadily. The need for research leading to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is widely recognized. However, dementia patients eventually lose the capacity to consent to the very research that could lead to discoveries of effective interventions. Worldwide, surrogate decision-making remains the primary means of consent for this population. This significantly restricts the autonomy of competent patients who wish to prospectively consent to research and do not wish to relinquish this decision to a third party. Advance research directives (ARDs) have been proposed as a mechanism for prospective consent for persons who anticipate cognitive impairment, as in the case of prodromal or early stage dementia patients. Currently, few guidelines specifically address the use of ARDs despite calls for official recognition. This absence of official guidelines regarding ARDs renders this mechanism susceptible to misuse, under-use, or non-use in instances where it could be advantageous for individuals, their families/caregivers, and progress in dementia research and treatment. This paper explores the changing landscape of ARDs, identifying relevant scientific, social, and policy developments, and queries whether, under these circumstances, reticence to use, recognize, or regulate ARDs is justified. It addresses some of the persistent issues related to vulnerability, the role of surrogates, and scope of prospective consent, and concludes that ARDs can serve as an important mechanism of autonomy and empowerment, and that protections should be crafted such that the availability of this option is not limited to those who also appoint a surrogate.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierce, Robin, 2010. "A changing landscape for advance directives in dementia research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 623-630, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:4:p:623-630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00727-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:4:p:623-630. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.