Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2018

01-06-2018 | Scientific Contribution

Dementia, identity and the role of friends

Author: Christopher Cowley

Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Ronald Dworkin (1993) introduced the example of Margo, who was so severely demented that she could not recognise any family or friends, and could not remember anything of her life. At the same time, however, she seemed full of childish delight. Dworkin also imagines that, before her dementia, Margo signed an advance refusal of life-saving treatment. Now severely demented, she develops pneumonia, easy to treat, but lethal if untreated. Dworkin argues that the advance refusal ought to be heeded and Margo be allowed to die of that pneumonia, on the basis that the prior refusal expresses her true wishes (her ‘critical interests’). In this paper I want to challenge Dworkin’s understanding of identity and his conclusion about advance refusals, and I develop my argument in two directions. First, I argue that the demented Margo is not some ‘lesser’ version of the ‘true’ Margo, but instead that the present Margo’s wishes should take precedence over those of the past Margo, on the grounds that all of us are entitled to change our minds. Second, I argue for a stronger role for friends and family members in sustaining the demented Margo’s identity through her years of decline. Based on this, I argue for a presumption against the advance refusal, but I allow that in extreme cases (which I describe), a friend might have the authority to demand that it be heeded.
Footnotes
1
According to Dworkin, the original example came from Firlik 1991.
 
2
See, for example (Dresser 2014; Menzel and Steinbock 2013; Muramoto 2011); for a discussion explicitly on Dworkin, see Dresser (1995).
 
3
There is of course a risk of other-deception and self-deception, more or less deliberate or accidental, throughout the story-telling. A person of integrity can be described as a person for whom the story that she tells mostly matches up with the story that others tell about her life.
 
4
The starting point for the contemporary discussion of personal identity is Parfit (1984), who explored and hugely developed Locke’s example.
 
5
There is an equivocation here, however. Let’s say that Dworkin at 30 loves his children and values his relationship with them. He says to himself “if I ever lose this relationship, that will be a loss.” 20 years pass, let’s say the children have descended into vice, crime and corruption, and Dworkin loses spontaneous interest in them, especially as his own career absorbs him more and more. Now the 30-year-old Dworkin would describe this as a loss. But the 50-year-old Dworkin might declare that his critical interests have simply changed; and he doesn’t feel as if he has lost anything given what his children have become and given the many other critical interests that he has developed over the 20 years.
 
6
This objection was forcefully articulated by an anonymous reviewer.
 
7
Indeed, I might also be accused of keeping Margo’s body alive against the wishes of Margo’s mind, simply out of misguided techno-medical zeal. This accusation is sometimes levelled against doctors in the event of a comatose patient. However, it is important for my discussion that I (as the physician) am struck by Margo’s entire person, she is much more than a living body.
 
8
Importantly, I am not assuming that, in changing your mind as you age, you are necessarily improving your opinion, or achieving either greater wisdom or authenticity. Many become more foolish with age! The greater authority of the later opinion is only based on the time-ordering.
 
9
Matthews (2006) lays the emphasis on the character criterion as a way of preserving identity in severely demented patients. I am pessimistic about his attempt, however, because character traits remain too general to individuate. If Smith is irascible before and after becoming demented, that does not help me identify the demented patient as my friend Smith, even if it adds to the uncanny first impression generated by his stable physical appearance.
 
10
In what follows I will be assuming that the category of 'friend' can be defined with enough precision to be normative; that is, I will be speculating on what a good friend should do. I am rejecting the thought that the concept of friendship is too diverse to allow for any plausible normativity of behaviour.
 
11
A starting point in the debate around ‘relational autonomy’, not only in feminist thought but elsewhere, is Mackenzie (2000).
 
12
In the case of family members, there is the added biological—and I would argue metaphysical—quality of sharing flesh and blood. This is important in the sense that my sister can never stop being my sister. This raises interesting questions of identity which I cannot pursue here, and so I shall continue with the broad category of 'friend' as including blood relatives.
 
13
Love is sometimes described as ‘illuminating’ the beloved, to the point where third parties come to see the individual as valuable and lovable, even despite the objective degradation of the individual. In this conception, love does not merely confer a psychological boost, it is transformative. On this, see Gaita’s (2000, p. 18–22) striking description of the nun working at a psychiatric hospital.
 
14
I am not assuming that Ruth has accepted a formal role in this respect, e.g. a Durable Power of Attorney in Health Care (DPAHC). That raises separate questions that would complicate my discussion too much.
 
15
In a similar vein, imagine a widower going to visit the grave of his wife, and talking to ‘her’. My inclination is to take such behaviour seriously, without seeing the widower as irrational or superstitious or hallucinating or self-indulgent. Of course he knows that his wife is dead and that her body is decaying under the soil: and yet I would be inclined to say that the relationship with the wife remains in some form after her death.
 
16
I am grateful to anonymous reviewers for raising these objections.
 
17
For a forceful argument against the legal permissibility of conscientious objection to lawful medical treatment, see Savulescu (2006). It is also worth reading the huge number of comments and replies to this article on the BMJ website.
 
18
I want to express my gratitude to Dr. Amanda Dalcassian, a consultant in palliative care at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, England, for several discussions about dementia and the medical treatment of it.
 
Literature
go back to reference De Grazia, D. 1999. Advance directives, dementia, and ‘the someone else problem’. Bioethics 13 (5): 373–391.CrossRef De Grazia, D. 1999. Advance directives, dementia, and ‘the someone else problem’. Bioethics 13 (5): 373–391.CrossRef
go back to reference Dresser, R. 1995. Dworkin on dementia: Elegant theory, questionable policy. Hastings Center Report 25 (6): 32–38.CrossRef Dresser, R. 1995. Dworkin on dementia: Elegant theory, questionable policy. Hastings Center Report 25 (6): 32–38.CrossRef
go back to reference Dresser, R. 2014. Toward a humane death with dementia. Hastings Center Report 44 (3): 38–40.CrossRef Dresser, R. 2014. Toward a humane death with dementia. Hastings Center Report 44 (3): 38–40.CrossRef
go back to reference Dworkin, R. 1993. Life’s Dominion. New York: Vintage. Dworkin, R. 1993. Life’s Dominion. New York: Vintage.
go back to reference Firlik, A. 1991. ‘Margo’s Logo’. Journal of the American Medical Association 265: 201.CrossRef Firlik, A. 1991. ‘Margo’s Logo’. Journal of the American Medical Association 265: 201.CrossRef
go back to reference Gaita, R. 2000. A Common Humanity. Thinking about Love and Truth and Justice. London: Routledge. Gaita, R. 2000. A Common Humanity. Thinking about Love and Truth and Justice. London: Routledge.
go back to reference Gedge, E. 2004. Collective moral imagination: Making decisions for persons with dementia. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (4): 435–450.CrossRef Gedge, E. 2004. Collective moral imagination: Making decisions for persons with dementia. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (4): 435–450.CrossRef
go back to reference Lindemann, H. 2009. Holding one another (well, wrongly, clumsily) in a time of dementia. Metaphilosophy 40 (3–4): 416–424.CrossRef Lindemann, H. 2009. Holding one another (well, wrongly, clumsily) in a time of dementia. Metaphilosophy 40 (3–4): 416–424.CrossRef
go back to reference Lovibond, S. 1998. Wittgensteinian Ethics, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London: Taylor and Francis. Lovibond, S. 1998. Wittgensteinian Ethics, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London: Taylor and Francis.
go back to reference Mackenzie, C., ed. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Essays on Autonomy, Agency and Social Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackenzie, C., ed. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Essays on Autonomy, Agency and Social Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Matthews, E. 2006. Dementia and the identity of the person. In Dementia: Mind, Meaning and the Person, ed. Hughes J. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthews, E. 2006. Dementia and the identity of the person. In Dementia: Mind, Meaning and the Person, ed. Hughes J. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Menzel, P., B. Steinbock. 2013. Advance directives, dementia, and physician-assisted death. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41.2: 484–500.CrossRef Menzel, P., B. Steinbock. 2013. Advance directives, dementia, and physician-assisted death. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41.2: 484–500.CrossRef
go back to reference Muramoto, O. 2011. Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (6): 339–343.CrossRef Muramoto, O. 2011. Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (6): 339–343.CrossRef
go back to reference Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Savulescu, J. 2006. Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal 332: 294–297.CrossRef Savulescu, J. 2006. Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal 332: 294–297.CrossRef
go back to reference Ter Meulen, R., K. Wright. 2012. Family solidarity and informal care: The case of care for people with dementia. Bioethics 26 (7): 361–368.CrossRef Ter Meulen, R., K. Wright. 2012. Family solidarity and informal care: The case of care for people with dementia. Bioethics 26 (7): 361–368.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Dementia, identity and the role of friends
Author
Christopher Cowley
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9801-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2018 Go to the issue