Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T08:27:20.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choosing for others as Continuing a Life Story: The Problem of Personal Identity Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jeffrey Blustein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philosophically, the most interesting objection to the reliance on advance directives to guide treatment decisions for formerly competent patients is the argument from the loss of personal identity. Starting with a psychological continuity theory of personal identity, the argument concludes that the very conditions that bring an advance directive into play may destroy the conditions necessary for personal identity, and so undercut the authority of the directive. In this article, I concede that if the purpose of a theory of personal identity is to provide an answer to the question What is it for a person to persist over time?, then reflection on personal identity poses a potentially serious threat to the moral authority of advance directives. However, as Marya Schechtman observes, questions about how a single person persists through change are not what most of us are interested in when we think about who a person is. Rather, we are interested in what it means to say that a particular set of actions, experiences, and characteristics is that of a given person rather than someone else.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Spring 1999 , pp. 20 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Dresser, R., “Life, Death, and Incompetent Patients: Conceptual Infirmities and Hidden Values in the Law,” Arizona Law Review, 28 (1986): 379–81; Dresser, R.S. and Robertson, J.A., “Quality of Life and Non-Treatment Decisions for Incompetent Patients: A Critique of the Orthodox Approach,” Law, Medicine & Health Care, 17 (1989): 234–44; and Dresser, R., “Dworkin on Dementia: Elegant Theory, Questionable Policy,” Hastings Center Report, 25, no. 6 (1995): 32–38.Google Scholar
Dresser, and Robertson, supra note 1, at 237.Google Scholar
See Schechtman, M., The Constitution of Selves (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Dresser, and Robertson, supra note 1, at 237.Google Scholar
Schechtman, supra note 3, at 96.Google Scholar
The continuer view is much closer to Ronald Dworkin's position than to that of his main critic, Rebecca Dresser. See Dresser, (1995), supra note 1. Dworkin's argument, based on a distinction between and ranking of “critical” and “experiential interests,” is eloquently presented in Dworkin, R., Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993): at 179–217.Google Scholar
See White, P., “Appointing a Proxy Under the Best of Circumstances,” Utah Law Review, 3 (1992): 849–60.Google Scholar
Keniston, K., The Uncommitted: Alienated Youth in American Society (New York: Dell, 1965): at 163.Google Scholar
Id. at 164.Google Scholar
Schechtman, supra note 3, at 97.Google Scholar
Id. at 98.Google Scholar
See id. at chap. 5.Google Scholar
See Parfit, D., Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984): Pt. Three.Google Scholar
Wolf, S., “Self-Interest and Interest in Selves,” Ethics, 96 (1996): at 709.Google Scholar
Schechtman, supra note 3, at 157.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See Noggle, R., Review, “Marya Schechtman, The Constitution of Selves,” Ethics, 108 (1998): 802–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schechtman, supra note 3, at 132.Google Scholar
Kuczewski, M., Fragmentation and Consensus: Communitarian and Casuist Bioethics (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997): Chap. 5.Google Scholar
Id. at 134.Google Scholar
Id. at 135.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 137.Google Scholar
Id. at 134.Google Scholar
Schechtman, supra note 3, at 95.Google Scholar
Kuczewski, supra note 19, at 135.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A., “Advance Directives and the Personal Identity Problem,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 17 (1988): at 287.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., “Harm and Self-Interest,” in Feinberg, J., Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980): at 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Scanlon, T., “Value, Desire, and the Quality of Life,” in Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A., eds., The Quality of Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993): 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schechtman, supra note 3, at 95.Google Scholar
Spelman, E., “On Treating Persons as Persons,” Ethics, 88 (1978): 150–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maryann Schechtman discusses these guidelines under the heading of the “Reality Constraint.” See Schechtman, supra note 3, at 119–30. This constraint requires that self-narratives cohere with what she calls “basic observational facts” and “interpretive facts.” Id. at 120. Among other things, “one's self-conception must cohere with what might be called the ‘objective’ account of her life—roughly the story that those around her would tell.” Id. at 95.Google Scholar
Spelman, supra note 31, at 154.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., “The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations,” in Feinberg, supra note 28, at 174.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Buchanan, supra note 27; and Buchanan, A.E. and Brock, D.W., Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
See Buchanan, supra note 27, at 299.Google Scholar