![]() ![]() ![]() For a third of the patients, the directive had a comfort‑care default, indicated by a pre-checked box. The advance directive given to them by the researchers first asked what their goal for care was: life extension or comfort care. In a remarkable study by Scott Halpern and colleagues, patients with terminal illnesses made choices about end‑of‑life care that actually determined their treatment. The latter involves declining many invasive interventions and focusing on managing pain and ensuring comfort. Grouped together, these treatments are called life-extension care. ![]() When people are gravely ill, they can choose interventions that could extend their lives, but these therapies are intrusive and unpleasant, and the time added to your life often comes with the price of being put on a ventilator or having a feeding tube inserted. They might be harming choosers unintentionally, making haphazard selections of tools.Ĭonsider end‑of‑life decisions. Designers don’t always know the power of the tools that are at their disposal. ![]() This is why neglecting choice architecture as a designer can lead to harm. All that warning appears to do is to make the nudge seem more acceptable. Several studies have told people about what defaults do, in various ways, including saying that their goal is to change behavior. Unfortunately, disclosing the presence and intent of choice architecture does not seem to work. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |