Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 February 2012
Among bioethicists, and perhaps ethicists generally, the idea that we are obliged to respect autonomy is something of a shibboleth. Appeals to autonomy are commonly put to work to support legal and moral claims about the importance of consent, but they also feed a wider discourse in which the patient’s desires are granted a very high importance and medical paternalism is regarded as almost self-evidently indefensible.
1. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J.Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:99.Google Scholar
2. Gillon, R.Ethics needs principles. Journal of Medical Ethics 2003;29(10):307–12, passim.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Dworkin, G.The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997:3–6.Google Scholar
4. Dean, R.The Value of Humanity in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006:197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Kant, I.Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Indianapolis: Hackett;1993:4:412Google Scholar. Where possible, I shall give pagination as it appears in the Prussian Academy edition of Kant’s work.
7. Ibid., at 4:412; emphasis mine.
8. Ibid., at 4:390.
9. Ibid., at 4:440; emphasis mine.
10. Kant, I. The conflict of the faculties. In: Kant, I.Religion and Rational Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 7:27.
11. O’Neill, O.Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005Google Scholar, at 85; emphasis mine.
12. Kant, I.The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 6:207.
13. Kant, I.Critique of Practical Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 5:161.
14. Norman, R.The Moral Philosophers. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998Google Scholar, at §6.
18. Ibid., 4:436.
22. Kant, I. On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. In: Kant, I.Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Indianapolis: Hackett; 1993Google Scholar, passim.
26. Although cf. Law, I.Autonomy, sanity and moral theory. Res Publica 2003;9(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, passim, although esp. 51, para 2.
30. Walker M. How Kant should have justified his categorical imperative. Unpublished, 2007.
31. Rousseau, JJ. The Social Contract. In: Barker, E, ed. Social Contract. London: Oxford University Press; 1960:167–307Google Scholar, at 184.
32. Ibid., at 185.
33. Kant, I. An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In: Reiss, H, ed. Kant: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991:54–60Google Scholar, at 55, 59.
34. Schopenhauer, A.On the Basis of Morality. Indianapolis: Hackett; 1995Google Scholar, at §§ III and IV.