Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Issues in the Care of Older Adults

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Geriatric Medicine

  • 666 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces key concepts and principles of bioethics and shows their application to the care of older adults. It begins by discussing four general principles of bioethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. The chapter shows that each principle is an abiding concern for people across the lifespan and illustrates how these values arise for older adults. The chapter next turns to explore life-stage-related values that are more central for older adults. These include keeping dignity intact and maintaining central functioning and capabilities. The final section examines the application of ethical values and principles to three paradigm cases: surrogate decision-making, withholding medically effective treatment based on a patient’s prior wishes, and withholding medically futile interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Richardson HS. Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems. Philos Public Aff. 1990;19(4):279–310.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jonsen AR, Veatch RM, Walters L, editors. Source book in bioethics. Georgetown University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pellegrino E. For the patient’s good: the restoration of beneficence in health care. Oxford University Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS. Wrong medicine: doctors, patients and futile treatment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR. Medical futility: its meaning and ethical implications. Ann Intern Med. 1991;112:949–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR. Medical futility: response to critiques. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(8):669–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dworkin G. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge University Press; 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaster B, Larson EB, Curtis JR. Advance directives for dementia: meeting a unique challenge. J Am Med Assoc. 2017;318(22):2175–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Faden R, Beauchamp T. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jecker NS, Wightman AG, Diekema DS. Prioritizing frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Bioeth. 2020;20:128.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Callahan D. Setting limits: medical goals in an aging society. Simon and Schuster; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Williams A. Intergenerational equity. Health Econ. 1997;6(2):117–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wareham CS. Youngest first? Why it is wrong to discriminate against the elderly in healthcare. S Afr J Bioeth Law. 2015;8(1):37–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly, learning to share resources for health. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Persad G. What is the relevance of procedural fairness to making determinations about medical evidence? AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):183–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fricker M. Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedman A. Beyond accountability for reasonableness. Bioethics. 2008;22(2):101–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alvidrez J, Castille D, Laude-Sharp M, Rosario A, Tabor D. The National Institute on minority health and health disparities research framework. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(S1):S16–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Jecker NS. Values across the life span. In: Jecker NS, editor. Ending midlife bias: new values for old age. New York: Oxford University Press; 2020.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization, 2016. Discrimination and negative attitudes about aging are bad for your health about ageing are bad for your health. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/discrimination-ageing-youth/en/

  22. Jecker NS. African conceptions of age-based moral standing. Hastings Cent Rep. 2020;50(2):35–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jecker NS. Ageism. In: Jecker NS, editor. Ending midlife bias: new values for old age. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jecker NS. The preferred account of human capabilities. In: Jecker NS, editor. Ending midlife bias: new values for old age. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Molinari V, McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Workman R. Principles and practice of geriatric assent. Aging Ment Health. 2004;10(1):48-54.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Coverdale J, McCullough LB, Molinari V, Workman R. Ethically justified clinical strategies for promoting geriatric assent. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;21:151–7, at 153.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Piers RD, Van den Eynde M, Steeman E, Vlerick P, Benoit DD, Van Den Noortgate NJ. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;80:E7–E13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. United Nations. Ageing in the twenty-first century. United National Population Fund (UNFPA); 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  29. American Geriatrics Society, 2018. State of the Geriatrician Workforce. https://www.americangeriatrics.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Geriatrics%20Workforce%20by%20the%20Numbers_0.pdf

  30. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2020. Telemedicine. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/telemed/index.html

  31. Health Resources and Services Administration. Telehealth. https://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/telehealth/index.html

  32. Lewis N. 2016. Telehealth helps close health care disparity gaps in rural areas. https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/telehealth-helps-close-health-care-disparity-gap-rural-areas

  33. Rivas H. Creating a case for digital health. In: Rivas H, Wac K, editors. Digital health: scaling healthcare to the world. Springer; 2018.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Mitzner TL, Savla J, Boot WR, Sharit J, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Rogers WA. Technology adoption by older adults: findings from the PRISM trial. Gerontologist. 2019;59(1):34–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Park J, Erikson C, Han X, Iyer P. Are state telehealth policies associated with the use of telehealth services among underserved populations. Health Aff. 2018;37(12):2060–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mitchell UA, Chebli PG, Ruggiero L, Muramatsu N. The digital divide in health-related technology use: the significance of race/ethnicity. Gerontologist. 2019;559(1):6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. American Medical Association, 2018. Ethical practice in telemedicine. Code of medical ethics, opinion 1.2.12. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/ethical-practice-telemedicine

  38. Mehta SJ. Telemedicine’s potential ethical pitfalls. Virtual Mentor. 16(13):1014–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chaet D, Clearfield R, Sabin JE, Skimming K, on behalf of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs American Medical Association. Ethical practice in telehealth and telemedicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4082-2.

  40. Kitchin R. Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Inf Commun Soc. 2017;20(1):14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Social isolation and loneliness in older adults. National Academies Press; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Steptoe A, Shankar A, Demakakos P, Wardle J. Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:5797–801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Pantell M, Rehkopf D, Jutte D, Syme L, Balmes J, Adler N. Social isolation: a predictor of mortality comparable to traditional risk factors. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:2056–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):227–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. University of Michigan, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation. 2019. National Poll on Healthy Aging. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/148147/NPHA_Loneliness-Report_FINAL-030419.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Nancy S. Jecker

Authors
  1. Nancy S. Jecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy S. Jecker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. California Association of Long Term Care Medicine, Newbury Park, CA, USA

    Michael R. Wasserman

  2. Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Debra Bakerjian

  3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA

    Sunny Linnebur

  4. Division of Geriatrics, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Sharon Brangman

  5. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Matteo Cesari

  6. Section of Geriatric Medicine, Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai, Beverly Hills, CA, USA

    Sonja Rosen

Section Editor information

  1. California Association of Long Term Care Medicine, Newbury Park, California, USA

    Michael R. Wasserman

  2. Department of Geriatrics, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA

    Sharon Brangman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Jecker, N.S. (2024). Ethical Issues in the Care of Older Adults. In: Wasserman, M.R., Bakerjian, D., Linnebur, S., Brangman, S., Cesari, M., Rosen, S. (eds) Geriatric Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74720-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74720-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74719-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74720-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation