Loading…
Steering clear of Akrasia: An integrative review of self‐binding Ulysses Contracts in clinical practice
In many jurisdictions, legal frameworks afford patients the opportunity to make prospective medical decisions or to create directives that contain a special provision forfeiting their own ability to object to those decisions at a future time point, should they lose decision‐making capacity. These ag...
Saved in:
Published in: | Bioethics 2023-09, Vol.37 (7), p.690-714 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 714 |
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 690 |
container_title | Bioethics |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Brenna, Connor T. A. Chen, Stacy S. Cho, Matthew McCoy, Liam G. Das, Sunit |
description | In many jurisdictions, legal frameworks afford patients the opportunity to make prospective medical decisions or to create directives that contain a special provision forfeiting their own ability to object to those decisions at a future time point, should they lose decision‐making capacity. These agreements have been described with widely varying nomenclatures, including Ulysses Contracts, Odysseus Transfers, Psychiatric Advance Directives with Ulysses Clauses, and Powers of Attorney with Special Provisions. As a consequence of this terminological heterogeneity, it is challenging for healthcare providers to understand the terms and uses of these agreements and for ethicists to engage with the nuances of clinical decision‐making with such unique provisions surrounding patient autonomy. In theory, prospective self‐binding agreements may safeguard patient's “authentic” wishes from future “inauthentic” changes of mind. In practice, it is unclear what may be comprised within these agreements or how—and to what effect—they are used. The primary focus of this integrative review is to curate the existing literature describing Ulysses Contracts (and analogous decisions) used in the clinical arena, in order to empirically synthesize their shared essence and provide insights into the traditional components of these agreements when used in practice, the requirements of their consent processes, and the outcomes of their utilization. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/bioe.13197 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2830216684</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2830216684</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3527-6ba1c17e25ead9e47c7d550480066064700e252479e6abb7d3f73269bb85268a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kbFOwzAQhi0EoqWw8AAoEgtCSrGd2E7YSlWgUqUO0DlynEvlkibFTlt14xF4Rp4EpykMDNxiyf7u051_hC4J7hNXd6muoE8CEosj1CUhF37ESHyMupjy2I8Fph10Zu0Cu4oZO0WdQAScYx52kX6pAYwu554qQBqvyr3Bm5FWy3tvUHq6rGFuZK034BnYaNg2hIUi__r4THWZNZ2zYmctWG9YlbWRqrauzel0qZUsvFVzpRWco5NcFhYuDmcPzR5Hr8NnfzJ9Gg8HE18FjAqfp5IoIoAykFkMoVAiYwyHEcb7kQXG7o2GIgYu01RkQS4Ct2eaRozySAY9dNN6V6Z6X4Otk6W2CopCllCtbUKjAFPCeRQ69PoPuqjWpnTTOSpkjEeCUEfdtpQylbUG8mRl9FKaXUJw0gSQNAEk-wAcfHVQrtMlZL_oz487gLTAVhew-0eVPIyno1b6DVCrkF0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2845568712</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Steering clear of Akrasia: An integrative review of self‐binding Ulysses Contracts in clinical practice</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Brenna, Connor T. A. ; Chen, Stacy S. ; Cho, Matthew ; McCoy, Liam G. ; Das, Sunit</creator><creatorcontrib>Brenna, Connor T. A. ; Chen, Stacy S. ; Cho, Matthew ; McCoy, Liam G. ; Das, Sunit</creatorcontrib><description>In many jurisdictions, legal frameworks afford patients the opportunity to make prospective medical decisions or to create directives that contain a special provision forfeiting their own ability to object to those decisions at a future time point, should they lose decision‐making capacity. These agreements have been described with widely varying nomenclatures, including Ulysses Contracts, Odysseus Transfers, Psychiatric Advance Directives with Ulysses Clauses, and Powers of Attorney with Special Provisions. As a consequence of this terminological heterogeneity, it is challenging for healthcare providers to understand the terms and uses of these agreements and for ethicists to engage with the nuances of clinical decision‐making with such unique provisions surrounding patient autonomy. In theory, prospective self‐binding agreements may safeguard patient's “authentic” wishes from future “inauthentic” changes of mind. In practice, it is unclear what may be comprised within these agreements or how—and to what effect—they are used. The primary focus of this integrative review is to curate the existing literature describing Ulysses Contracts (and analogous decisions) used in the clinical arena, in order to empirically synthesize their shared essence and provide insights into the traditional components of these agreements when used in practice, the requirements of their consent processes, and the outcomes of their utilization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-9702</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-8519</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13197</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37366064</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Advance directives ; Agreements ; Autonomy ; binding contract ; Bioethics ; Clinical decision making ; Clinical medicine ; Contracts ; Decision making ; Health care ; Odysseus Transfer ; Patients ; Powers of attorney ; psychiatric will ; Ulysses Contract ; Ulysses Pact ; voluntary commitment contract</subject><ispartof>Bioethics, 2023-09, Vol.37 (7), p.690-714</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0003-0827-5175 ; 0000-0002-2146-4168 ; 0000-0002-6126-3897</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999,33223</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37366064$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brenna, Connor T. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Stacy S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cho, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Liam G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das, Sunit</creatorcontrib><title>Steering clear of Akrasia: An integrative review of self‐binding Ulysses Contracts in clinical practice</title><title>Bioethics</title><addtitle>Bioethics</addtitle><description>In many jurisdictions, legal frameworks afford patients the opportunity to make prospective medical decisions or to create directives that contain a special provision forfeiting their own ability to object to those decisions at a future time point, should they lose decision‐making capacity. These agreements have been described with widely varying nomenclatures, including Ulysses Contracts, Odysseus Transfers, Psychiatric Advance Directives with Ulysses Clauses, and Powers of Attorney with Special Provisions. As a consequence of this terminological heterogeneity, it is challenging for healthcare providers to understand the terms and uses of these agreements and for ethicists to engage with the nuances of clinical decision‐making with such unique provisions surrounding patient autonomy. In theory, prospective self‐binding agreements may safeguard patient's “authentic” wishes from future “inauthentic” changes of mind. In practice, it is unclear what may be comprised within these agreements or how—and to what effect—they are used. The primary focus of this integrative review is to curate the existing literature describing Ulysses Contracts (and analogous decisions) used in the clinical arena, in order to empirically synthesize their shared essence and provide insights into the traditional components of these agreements when used in practice, the requirements of their consent processes, and the outcomes of their utilization.</description><subject>Advance directives</subject><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Autonomy</subject><subject>binding contract</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Contracts</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Odysseus Transfer</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Powers of attorney</subject><subject>psychiatric will</subject><subject>Ulysses Contract</subject><subject>Ulysses Pact</subject><subject>voluntary commitment contract</subject><issn>0269-9702</issn><issn>1467-8519</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kbFOwzAQhi0EoqWw8AAoEgtCSrGd2E7YSlWgUqUO0DlynEvlkibFTlt14xF4Rp4EpykMDNxiyf7u051_hC4J7hNXd6muoE8CEosj1CUhF37ESHyMupjy2I8Fph10Zu0Cu4oZO0WdQAScYx52kX6pAYwu554qQBqvyr3Bm5FWy3tvUHq6rGFuZK034BnYaNg2hIUi__r4THWZNZ2zYmctWG9YlbWRqrauzel0qZUsvFVzpRWco5NcFhYuDmcPzR5Hr8NnfzJ9Gg8HE18FjAqfp5IoIoAykFkMoVAiYwyHEcb7kQXG7o2GIgYu01RkQS4Ct2eaRozySAY9dNN6V6Z6X4Otk6W2CopCllCtbUKjAFPCeRQ69PoPuqjWpnTTOSpkjEeCUEfdtpQylbUG8mRl9FKaXUJw0gSQNAEk-wAcfHVQrtMlZL_oz487gLTAVhew-0eVPIyno1b6DVCrkF0</recordid><startdate>202309</startdate><enddate>202309</enddate><creator>Brenna, Connor T. A.</creator><creator>Chen, Stacy S.</creator><creator>Cho, Matthew</creator><creator>McCoy, Liam G.</creator><creator>Das, Sunit</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0827-5175</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2146-4168</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6126-3897</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202309</creationdate><title>Steering clear of Akrasia: An integrative review of self‐binding Ulysses Contracts in clinical practice</title><author>Brenna, Connor T. A. ; Chen, Stacy S. ; Cho, Matthew ; McCoy, Liam G. ; Das, Sunit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3527-6ba1c17e25ead9e47c7d550480066064700e252479e6abb7d3f73269bb85268a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Advance directives</topic><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Autonomy</topic><topic>binding contract</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Contracts</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Odysseus Transfer</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Powers of attorney</topic><topic>psychiatric will</topic><topic>Ulysses Contract</topic><topic>Ulysses Pact</topic><topic>voluntary commitment contract</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brenna, Connor T. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Stacy S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cho, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Liam G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das, Sunit</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Bioethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brenna, Connor T. A.</au><au>Chen, Stacy S.</au><au>Cho, Matthew</au><au>McCoy, Liam G.</au><au>Das, Sunit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Steering clear of Akrasia: An integrative review of self‐binding Ulysses Contracts in clinical practice</atitle><jtitle>Bioethics</jtitle><addtitle>Bioethics</addtitle><date>2023-09</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>690</spage><epage>714</epage><pages>690-714</pages><issn>0269-9702</issn><eissn>1467-8519</eissn><abstract>In many jurisdictions, legal frameworks afford patients the opportunity to make prospective medical decisions or to create directives that contain a special provision forfeiting their own ability to object to those decisions at a future time point, should they lose decision‐making capacity. These agreements have been described with widely varying nomenclatures, including Ulysses Contracts, Odysseus Transfers, Psychiatric Advance Directives with Ulysses Clauses, and Powers of Attorney with Special Provisions. As a consequence of this terminological heterogeneity, it is challenging for healthcare providers to understand the terms and uses of these agreements and for ethicists to engage with the nuances of clinical decision‐making with such unique provisions surrounding patient autonomy. In theory, prospective self‐binding agreements may safeguard patient's “authentic” wishes from future “inauthentic” changes of mind. In practice, it is unclear what may be comprised within these agreements or how—and to what effect—they are used. The primary focus of this integrative review is to curate the existing literature describing Ulysses Contracts (and analogous decisions) used in the clinical arena, in order to empirically synthesize their shared essence and provide insights into the traditional components of these agreements when used in practice, the requirements of their consent processes, and the outcomes of their utilization.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>37366064</pmid><doi>10.1111/bioe.13197</doi><tpages>25</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0827-5175</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2146-4168</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6126-3897</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0269-9702 |
ispartof | Bioethics, 2023-09, Vol.37 (7), p.690-714 |
issn | 0269-9702 1467-8519 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2830216684 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | Advance directives Agreements Autonomy binding contract Bioethics Clinical decision making Clinical medicine Contracts Decision making Health care Odysseus Transfer Patients Powers of attorney psychiatric will Ulysses Contract Ulysses Pact voluntary commitment contract |
title | Steering clear of Akrasia: An integrative review of self‐binding Ulysses Contracts in clinical practice |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T23%3A06%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Steering%20clear%20of%20Akrasia:%20An%20integrative%20review%20of%20self%E2%80%90binding%20Ulysses%20Contracts%20in%20clinical%20practice&rft.jtitle=Bioethics&rft.au=Brenna,%20Connor%20T.%20A.&rft.date=2023-09&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=690&rft.epage=714&rft.pages=690-714&rft.issn=0269-9702&rft.eissn=1467-8519&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bioe.13197&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2830216684%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3527-6ba1c17e25ead9e47c7d550480066064700e252479e6abb7d3f73269bb85268a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2845568712&rft_id=info:pmid/37366064&rfr_iscdi=true |