Abstract
Decision analysis has been proposed as a method to improve the quality of decisions made by individuals facing choices about genetic testing for Alzheimer disease (AD) and other conditions where information about risk is highly uncertain. This paper provides a philosophical critique of two schools of decision analysis, explaining the conceptual limitations inherent in each approach. A central difference between the two approaches is their stance toward the ontological status of patient preferences and values. Are an individual's preferences and values about genetic testing simply assessed or extracted during decision analysis or are they created during the decision analysis itself? How closely can preferences conform to the axioms of rational choice theory? A case study of one individual's experience with decision analysis demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of decision analysis in the context of genetic testing for AD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.