Jagiellonian University Repository

Withdrawal aversion as a useful heuristic for critical care decisions


Withdrawal aversion as a useful heuristic for critical care decisions

Show full item record

dc.contributor.author Żuradzki, Tomasz [SAP14004448] pl
dc.contributor.author Nowak, Piotr [SAP14013557] pl
dc.date.accessioned 2019-05-13T09:33:53Z
dc.date.available 2019-05-13T09:33:53Z
dc.date.issued 2019 pl
dc.identifier.issn 1526-5161 pl
dc.identifier.uri https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/74473
dc.language eng pl
dc.rights Dodaję tylko opis bibliograficzny *
dc.rights.uri *
dc.title Withdrawal aversion as a useful heuristic for critical care decisions pl
dc.type JournalArticle pl
dc.description.physical 36-38 pl
dc.description.additional Autor podpisany na pub. Piotr Grzegorz Nowak pl
dc.abstract.en While agreeing with the main conclusion of Dominic Wilkinson and colleagues (Wilkinson, Butcherine, and Savulescu 2019), namely, that there is no moral difference between treatment withholding and withdrawal as such, we wish to criticize their approach on the basis that it treats the widespread acceptance of withdrawal aversion (WA) as a cognitive bias. Wilkinson and colleagues understand WA as "a nonrational preference for withholding (WH) treatment over withdrawal (WD) of treatment" (22). They treat WA as a manifestation of loss aversion and refer to Kahneman and colleagues (1991), which defined this effect as follows: "the disutility of giving up an object is greater that the utility associated with acquiring it" (194). In a previous work, Wilkinson and Savulescu understood nonequivalence between treatment withholding and withdrawal as a reflection of slightly different, although related, phenomena: status quo bias or omission bias (Wilkinson and Savulescu 2012, 130-131). In neither of these two papers do they describe precisely the relation between these well-known psychological effects and WA, nor do they explain why they treat these effects as examples of nonrational preferences, despite the fact that these issues have been the subject of wide-ranging discussions on the intersection of psychology, economy, and philosophy. pl
dc.subject.en withholding treatment pl
dc.subject.en withdrawal treatment pl
dc.subject.en critical care decisions pl
dc.subject.en heuristics pl
dc.subject.en withdrawal aversion pl
dc.subject.en biases pl
dc.description.volume 19 pl
dc.description.number 3 pl
dc.description.publication 0,5 pl
dc.identifier.doi 10.1080/15265161.2018.1563656 pl
dc.identifier.eissn 1536-0075 pl
dc.title.journal American Journal of Bioethics pl
dc.language.container eng pl
dc.affiliation Wydział Filozoficzny : Instytut Filozofii pl
dc.subtype Article pl
dc.rights.original bez licencji pl
dc.identifier.project ROD UJ / O pl
dc.identifier.project 2015/ 17/B/HS1/02279 pl
dc.identifier.project 0068/NPRH4/H2b/83/2016 pl
.pointsMNiSW [2019 A]: 200

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)