Empirical Fallacies in the Debate on Substituted Judgment.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


According to the Substituted Judgment Standard a surrogate decision maker ought to make the decision that the incompetent patient would have made, had he or she been competent. This standard has received a fair amount of criticism, but the objections raised are often wide of the mark. In this article we discuss three objections based on empirical research, and explain why these do not give us reason to abandon the Substituted Judgment Standard.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)73-81
JournalHealth Care Analysis
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy


  • * Incompetence * Substituted Judgment Standard * Proxy decision making


Dive into the research topics of 'Empirical Fallacies in the Debate on Substituted Judgment.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this