Patients as Rights Holders
2017 (English)In: The Hastings center report, ISSN 0093-0334, E-ISSN 1552-146X, Vol. 47, no 4, p. 32-39Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]
The dominant value in much of contemporary clinical ethics and research ethics has been that of autonomy understood as individual choice and with informed consent as the primary mechanism through which autonomy is exercised. This emphasis on autonomy is discussed here in the light of a critique formulated by Onora O’Neill. Given that there is something to this critique, two main lines of response are identified. The first is to replace the mainstream conception of autonomy with an alternative conception, like the Kantian one. The second is to keep the standard notion, but to embed it within a richer set of person-centered values, with a human-rights approach being a prime example. It is then argued that the latter approach is the preferable one.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2017. Vol. 47, no 4, p. 32-39
Keywords [en]
Autonomy, Informed Consent, Human Rights
National Category
Humanities and the Arts
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-1275DOI: 10.1002/hast.738ISI: 000406410300014Local ID: 23181OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-1275DiVA, id: diva2:1398003
2020-02-272020-02-272022-06-27Bibliographically approved