See DublerN.N., “The Doctor-Proxy Relationship: The Neglected Connection,”Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5 (1995): 289–306.
2.
See SUPPORT Principal Investigators, “A Controlled Trial to Improve Outcomes for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Adults: The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT),”JAMA, 274 (1995): 1591–98; and TenoJ.M., “Advance Directives for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: Effectiveness with the Patient Self-Determination Act and the SUPPORT Intervention,”Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45 (1997): 500–07.
3.
See TenoJ.M., “Do Advance Directives Provide Instructions that Direct Care?,”Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45 (1997): 508–12.
4.
FinsJ.J., “Advance Directives and SUPPORT,”Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45 (1997): at 520.
5.
See MoskowitzE.H. and NelsonJ.L., “The Best Laid Plans,”Hastings Center Report, 25, no. 6 (1995): S3–S6.
6.
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Making Health Care Decisions (Washington, D.C.: President's Commission, 1982): at 159.
7.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
8.
AnnasG.J., “The Health Care Proxy and the Living Will,”N. Engl. J. Med., 324 (1991): at 1211.
9.
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Life-Sustaining Treatment: Making Decisions and Appointing a Health Care Agent (Albany: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, 1987): at 91–92.
10.
BuchananA.E. and BrockD.W., Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989): at 94–95.
11.
HardwigJ., “The Problem of Proxies with Interests of Their Own,”Journal of Clinical Ethics, 4 (1993): at 20.
12.
See PowellT., “Extubating Mrs. K: Psychological Aspects of Surrogate Decision Making,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 27 (1999): 81–86.
13.
See SabatinoC.P., “The Legal and Functional Status of the Medical Proxy: Suggestions for Statutory Reform,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 27 (1999): 52–68.
14.
KappM.B., Commentary, “Anxieties as a Legal Impediment to the Doctor-Proxy Relationship,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 27 (1999): 69–73.
15.
New York State Task Force, supra note 9, at 92.
16.
See BaierA.C., Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).
17.
Id. at 196.
18.
See LagerspetzO., “The Notion of Trust in Philosophical Psychology,” in AlanenL.HeinamaaS., and WalgrenT., eds., Commonality and Particularity in Ethics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997): 95–117.
19.
See BaierA.C., “Response to Olli Lagerspetz,” in AlanenHeinamaa, and Walgren, supra note 18, at 118–22.
20.
BaierA.C., “Trusting Ex-intimates,” in GrahamG. and LaFolletteH., eds., Person to Person (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989): at 27.
21.
GaylinW. and JenningsB., The Perversion of Autonomy (New York: Free Press, 1996); at 231.
22.
HighD.M., “Families' Roles in Advance Directives,”Hastings Center Report, 24, no. 6 (1994): at S18.
23.
NelsonJ.L. and NelsonH.L., “Guided by Intimates,”Hastings Center Report, 23, no. 5 (1993): 14–6; and NelsonH.L. and NelsonJ.L., “Preferences and Other Moral Sources,”Hastings Center Report, 24, no. 6 (1994): S19–S21.
24.
See BlusteinJ., “The Family in Medical Decision-Making,”Hastings Center Report, 23, no. 3 (1993): 6–13.
25.
See PellegrinoE.D. and ThomasmaD.C., The Virtues in Medical Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).