Reviving Ulysses contracts. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2003 Dec;13(4):373-92
Date
03/31/2004Pubmed ID
15049305DOI
10.1353/ken.2004.0010Scopus ID
2-s2.0-0842286027 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 54 CitationsAbstract
Ulysses contracts have faced paternalism objections since they first were proposed. Since the contracts are designed to override a present request from a legally competent patient in favor of a past request made by that patient, enforcement of these contracts was argued to be unjustifiable strong paternalism. Recent legal developments and new theories of practical reasoning suggest that the discussion of Ulysses contracts should be revived. This paper argues that with a proper understanding of the future-directed planning embodied in Ulysses contracts, the charge of strong paternalism can be answered, and the enforcement of some Ulysses contracts may be justified under the rubric of weak paternalism.
Author List
Spellecy RAuthor
Ryan Spellecy PhD Assistant Provost, Director, Professor in the Institute for Health and Humanity department at Medical College of WisconsinMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
Advance Directive AdherenceAdvance Directives
Bipolar Disorder
Contracts
Government Regulation
Humans
Intention
Mental Competency
Models, Theoretical
Paternalism
Psychiatry
Schizophrenia, Paranoid
State Government
