The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 51, October 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 38-39, October 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 49-50, October 2012.

This paper will discuss why and how social network sites ought to be used in surrogate decision making (SDM), with focus on a context like Singapore in which substituted judgment is incorporated as part of best interest assessment for SDM, as guided by the Code of Practice for making decisions for those lacking mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act (2008). Specifically, the paper will argue that the Code of Practice already supports an ethical obligation, as part of a patient-centred (...) care approach, to look for and appraise social network site (SNS) as a source of information for best interest decision making. As an important preliminary, the paper will draw on Berg’s arguments to support the use of SNS information as a resource for SDM. It will also supplement her account for how SNS information ought to be weighed against or considered alongside other evidence of patient preference or wishes, such as advance directives and anecdotal accounts by relatives. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 45-47, October 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 43-45, October 2012.

Volume 20, Issue 2, February 2020, Page 66-68.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 47-49, October 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 39-41, October 2012.

The increasing accuracy of algorithms to predict values and preferences raises the possibility that artificial intelligence technology will be able to serve as a surrogate decision-maker for incapacitated patients. Following Camillo Lamanna and Lauren Byrne, we call this technology the autonomy algorithm. Such an algorithm would mine medical research, health records, and social media data to predict patient treatment preferences. The possibility of developing the AA raises the ethical question of whether the AA or a relative ought to serve as (...) surrogate decision-maker in cases where the patient has not issued a medical power of attorney. We argue that in such cases, and against the standard practice of vesting familial surrogates with decision making authority, the AA should have sole decision-making authority. This is because the AA will likely be better at predicting what treatment option the patient would have chosen. It would also be better at avoiding bias and, therefore, choosing in a more patient-centered manner. Furthermore, we argue that these considerations override any moral weight of the patient’s special relationship with their relatives. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 2, February 2020, Page 64-66.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 41-43, October 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 36-37, October 2012.