Abstract
One prominent approach in ethical theory, strongly influential in medical ethics, has at its foundations competing principles of beneficence and respect for autonomy. In the clinical context, the clinician must balance respect for the patient's autonomy against concern for that patient's welfare. In the research context, the researcher must balance respect for the participant's autonomy against concern for other people's welfare. While I think this gets some important things right, the focus of this essay is on explaining some of the ways in which approaching these issues as a matter of balancing beneficence against respect for autonomy is too simplistic. In the clinical context, a right of self-determination constrains paternalistic action. In the research ethics context, a right of self-ownership constrains exploitation the use of others as a means. After explaining the difference between these two rights, the paper focuses on the latter, asking two principal questions. First, what are the boundaries of the right of self-ownership? Who has this right, when and why? And secondly, how should we think about the conditions under which the right may permissibly be infringed?
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Beyond Autonomy: Limits and Alternatives to Informed Consent in Research Ethics and Law |
Editors | David G Kirchhoffer and Bernadette J Richards |
Place of Publication | United Kingdom |
Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
Pages | 81-95 |
Volume | 1 |
Edition | 1st |
ISBN (Print) | 9781108649247 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2020 |