But I am very doubtful about this doctrine in the context of advance statements. Well, I am not so sanguine as the Law Commission. The crucial difference is that in financial matters the proxy is acting in ways what are for the perceived good of the donor, whereas in medical matters a decision may be required which leads to the death of the donor. Many proxies will not have the stomach for that kind of decision. To which I shall say 'Yes, provided we also agree that death can be in a person's best interests'.
Some Objections There are several common ethical objections to advance statements.
All of them can be answered. Patients do not really want to discuss future incompetence and death, and so would rather not discuss advance statements. In reply we can say that many people do want to make arrangements for their possible future incapacity, and no one is obliged to do so. Discussion of advance statements takes too much time and requires special training and competence. In reply it can be noted that as advance statements become more familiar less time will be required.