Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:35:46.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Limits of Autonomy in Biomedical Ethics? Conceptual Clarifications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2011

Extract

In biomedical ethics the principle of autonomy is closely connected with the moral and legal claim to informed consent. After World War II and the dramatic misuse of medicine in Nazi Germany, informed consent regulations were expected to help avoid similar misuse in the future, to help overcome the traditional medical paternalism, and to advance the liberty rights of patients and human subjects of research. With the rise of the new field of bioethics in the 1970s, the traditional beneficence-based model of medical ethics shifted in the direction of an individual autonomy model.

Type
Special Section: From Informed Consent to No Consent?
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cf. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, J.Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994:120.Google Scholar

2. Faden, R, Beauchamp, TL.A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986:8.Google Scholar

3. O’Neill, O.Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Callahan, D.When self-determination runs amok. Hastings Center Report 1992;22(2):52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Cf. Manson, NC, O’Neill, O.Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Kant, I.The Metaphysics of Morals. Part II: Metaphysical First Principles of the Doctrine of Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009:202 (§ 30).Google Scholar

7. See note 6, Kant 2009:76–77 (§ 35).

8. See note 7, Kant 2009.