According to an article in the New Scientist, A simple formula can predict how people would want to be treated in dire medical situations as accurately as their loved ones can, say researchers. According to a study, surrogate decision makers were only 68% right when trying to predict what their loved one would want under hypothetical circumstances. But the computer program did better, getting it right about 78% of the time.
The formula is based on people, asked to imagine themselves in comas, wanting care if they have a 1% chance of recovering awareness. But using such a formula would be a case of garbage in, garbage out. Diagnoses of persistent vegetative state are notoriously inaccurate. Indeed, there are unexpected awakenings, of confusion between a “locked in state” (unable to communicate) and a persistent unconscious state (actually unaware).
More importantly, using such a computer model would not treat the patient as an individual. Even if the computer could predict in 78 out of 100 cases, that would still leave 22 people whose wishes would be violated.
Everyone should create an advance directive. Absent that, patients and society are much better served giving the benefit of doubt to life over death when we do not know what the patient would want. My friend Bobby Schindler had it right, when he told the New Scientist: “I believe it would be extremely irresponsible to allow machines to make decisions involving life and death,” says Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years until she died in 2005 after doctors removed her feeding tube. Her case sparked huge debate in the US. “If a person becomes incapacitated, is not dying, and can assimilate food and water via a feeding tube, then I believe that we are morally obligated to care for the person and provide them this basic care—regardless of a computer attempting to ‘predict’ what that person’s wishes might be,” Schindler adds. “Essentially, you would be allowing a machine to determine what is ethical, what is right and wrong, which no machine is able to do.”
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
