Forced to be Right

In “Forced to be Free”, Neil Levy surveys the raft of documented decision-making biases that humans are heir to, and advances several bold proposals designed to enhance the patient's judgment. Gratefully, Levy is moved by the psychological research on judgment and decision-making that documents...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical ethics 2014-05, Vol.40 (5), p.303-304
Main Author: Trout, J D
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Bioethics
Choice Behavior
Coercion
Cognition & reasoning
Commentaries
Comprehension
Criticism and interpretation
Decision making
Ethical aspects
Freedom
Health aspects
Humans
Informed Consent - ethics
Judgment
Medical ethics
Moral judgment
Pain
Paternalism
Patients
Personal Autonomy
Police
Police lineups
Politics
Proposals
Psychologists
Reasoning
Researchers
Scholars
Wellbeing
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b438t-86d7b8ac3ad7718ed5217c0b0e224c0ac0b993343e0a2ecae1acef6238c3ae663
cites
container_end_page 304
container_issue 5
container_start_page 303
container_title Journal of medical ethics
container_volume 40
creator Trout, J D
description In “Forced to be Free”, Neil Levy surveys the raft of documented decision-making biases that humans are heir to, and advances several bold proposals designed to enhance the patient's judgment. Gratefully, Levy is moved by the psychological research on judgment and decision-making that documents people's inaccuracy when identifying courses of action will best promote their subjective well-being. But Levy is quick to favour the patient's present preferences, to ensure they get “final say” about their treatment. I urge the opposite inclination, raising doubts about whether the patient's “present preferences” are the best expression of their “final say”. When there is adequate evidence that people, by their own lights, overemphasize their present preferences about the future, we should carefully depreciate those preferences, in effect biasing them to make the right decision by their own lights.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/medethics-2011-100426
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1517398193</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A368381546</galeid><jstor_id>43282989</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A368381546</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b438t-86d7b8ac3ad7718ed5217c0b0e224c0ac0b993343e0a2ecae1acef6238c3ae663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMFLwzAYxYMobk4v3icDL16i-ZI2TY8ynAqDgeg5pOm3raVtZtOB_vemdO7gyVwSeL_38niETIHdAwj5UGOO3bawnnIGQIGxiMsTMoYoETTicXJKxkwwSaVibEQuvC9ZOFyl52TEeQQxQDom1wvXWsxnnZtlOHsrNtvukpytTeXx6nBPyMfi6X3-Qper59f545JmkVAdVTJPMmWsMHmSgMI85pBYljEM6ZaZ8ExTISKBzHC0BsFYXEsuVLCglGJC7obcXes-9-g7XRfeYlWZBt3e69AwEamCEDIht3_Q0u3bJrTTkChgqeRpH0gHamMq1EVjXdPhV2ddVeEGdSg_X-lHIZVQEEc9Hw-8bZ33La71ri1q035rYLofWR9H1v3Iehg5-G4ObfZZII6u31UDMB2A0neuPeqR4IqnqtfZoGd1-c8_fwCmyI8k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781096296</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Forced to be Right</title><source>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><creator>Trout, J D</creator><creatorcontrib>Trout, J D</creatorcontrib><description>In “Forced to be Free”, Neil Levy surveys the raft of documented decision-making biases that humans are heir to, and advances several bold proposals designed to enhance the patient's judgment. Gratefully, Levy is moved by the psychological research on judgment and decision-making that documents people's inaccuracy when identifying courses of action will best promote their subjective well-being. But Levy is quick to favour the patient's present preferences, to ensure they get “final say” about their treatment. I urge the opposite inclination, raising doubts about whether the patient's “present preferences” are the best expression of their “final say”. When there is adequate evidence that people, by their own lights, overemphasize their present preferences about the future, we should carefully depreciate those preferences, in effect biasing them to make the right decision by their own lights.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-6800</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1473-4257</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100426</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22415119</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMETDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Bioethics ; Choice Behavior ; Coercion ; Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Commentaries ; Comprehension ; Criticism and interpretation ; Decision making ; Ethical aspects ; Freedom ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Informed Consent - ethics ; Judgment ; Medical ethics ; Moral judgment ; Pain ; Paternalism ; Patients ; Personal Autonomy ; Police ; Police lineups ; Politics ; Proposals ; Psychologists ; Reasoning ; Researchers ; Scholars ; Wellbeing</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical ethics, 2014-05, Vol.40 (5), p.303-304</ispartof><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2014 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the Institute of Medical Ethics</rights><rights>Copyright: 2014 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b438t-86d7b8ac3ad7718ed5217c0b0e224c0ac0b993343e0a2ecae1acef6238c3ae663</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1781096296/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1781096296?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,12842,21375,27905,27906,33592,33593,34756,34757,43714,44181,58219,58452,73970,74477</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22415119$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Trout, J D</creatorcontrib><title>Forced to be Right</title><title>Journal of medical ethics</title><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><description>In “Forced to be Free”, Neil Levy surveys the raft of documented decision-making biases that humans are heir to, and advances several bold proposals designed to enhance the patient's judgment. Gratefully, Levy is moved by the psychological research on judgment and decision-making that documents people's inaccuracy when identifying courses of action will best promote their subjective well-being. But Levy is quick to favour the patient's present preferences, to ensure they get “final say” about their treatment. I urge the opposite inclination, raising doubts about whether the patient's “present preferences” are the best expression of their “final say”. When there is adequate evidence that people, by their own lights, overemphasize their present preferences about the future, we should carefully depreciate those preferences, in effect biasing them to make the right decision by their own lights.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Coercion</subject><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Commentaries</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Criticism and interpretation</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Ethical aspects</subject><subject>Freedom</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent - ethics</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Moral judgment</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Paternalism</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Personal Autonomy</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>Police lineups</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Proposals</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Scholars</subject><subject>Wellbeing</subject><issn>0306-6800</issn><issn>1473-4257</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMFLwzAYxYMobk4v3icDL16i-ZI2TY8ynAqDgeg5pOm3raVtZtOB_vemdO7gyVwSeL_38niETIHdAwj5UGOO3bawnnIGQIGxiMsTMoYoETTicXJKxkwwSaVibEQuvC9ZOFyl52TEeQQxQDom1wvXWsxnnZtlOHsrNtvukpytTeXx6nBPyMfi6X3-Qper59f545JmkVAdVTJPMmWsMHmSgMI85pBYljEM6ZaZ8ExTISKBzHC0BsFYXEsuVLCglGJC7obcXes-9-g7XRfeYlWZBt3e69AwEamCEDIht3_Q0u3bJrTTkChgqeRpH0gHamMq1EVjXdPhV2ddVeEGdSg_X-lHIZVQEEc9Hw-8bZ33La71ri1q035rYLofWR9H1v3Iehg5-G4ObfZZII6u31UDMB2A0neuPeqR4IqnqtfZoGd1-c8_fwCmyI8k</recordid><startdate>20140501</startdate><enddate>20140501</enddate><creator>Trout, J D</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140501</creationdate><title>Forced to be Right</title><author>Trout, J D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b438t-86d7b8ac3ad7718ed5217c0b0e224c0ac0b993343e0a2ecae1acef6238c3ae663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Coercion</topic><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Commentaries</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Criticism and interpretation</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Ethical aspects</topic><topic>Freedom</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent - ethics</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Moral judgment</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Paternalism</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Personal Autonomy</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>Police lineups</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Proposals</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Scholars</topic><topic>Wellbeing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Trout, J D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Trout, J D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Forced to be Right</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><date>2014-05-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>303</spage><epage>304</epage><pages>303-304</pages><issn>0306-6800</issn><eissn>1473-4257</eissn><coden>JMETDR</coden><abstract>In “Forced to be Free”, Neil Levy surveys the raft of documented decision-making biases that humans are heir to, and advances several bold proposals designed to enhance the patient's judgment. Gratefully, Levy is moved by the psychological research on judgment and decision-making that documents people's inaccuracy when identifying courses of action will best promote their subjective well-being. But Levy is quick to favour the patient's present preferences, to ensure they get “final say” about their treatment. I urge the opposite inclination, raising doubts about whether the patient's “present preferences” are the best expression of their “final say”. When there is adequate evidence that people, by their own lights, overemphasize their present preferences about the future, we should carefully depreciate those preferences, in effect biasing them to make the right decision by their own lights.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group</pub><pmid>22415119</pmid><doi>10.1136/medethics-2011-100426</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0306-6800
ispartof Journal of medical ethics, 2014-05, Vol.40 (5), p.303-304
issn 0306-6800
1473-4257
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1517398193
source Art, Design and Architecture Collection; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Social Science Premium Collection
subjects Analysis
Bioethics
Choice Behavior
Coercion
Cognition & reasoning
Commentaries
Comprehension
Criticism and interpretation
Decision making
Ethical aspects
Freedom
Health aspects
Humans
Informed Consent - ethics
Judgment
Medical ethics
Moral judgment
Pain
Paternalism
Patients
Personal Autonomy
Police
Police lineups
Politics
Proposals
Psychologists
Reasoning
Researchers
Scholars
Wellbeing
title Forced to be Right
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T17%3A56%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Forced%20to%20be%20Right&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20ethics&rft.au=Trout,%20J%20D&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=303&rft.epage=304&rft.pages=303-304&rft.issn=0306-6800&rft.eissn=1473-4257&rft.coden=JMETDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2011-100426&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA368381546%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b438t-86d7b8ac3ad7718ed5217c0b0e224c0ac0b993343e0a2ecae1acef6238c3ae663%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781096296&rft_id=info:pmid/22415119&rft_galeid=A368381546&rft_jstor_id=43282989&rfr_iscdi=true