Abstract
AbstractPatients are usually granted autonomy rights, including the right to consent to or refuse treatment. These rights are commonly attributed to patients if they fulfil certain conditions. For example, a patient must sufficiently understand the information given to them before making a treatment decision. On the one hand, there is a large group of patients who meet these conditions. On the other hand, there is a group that clearly does not meet these conditions, including comatose patients or patients in the late stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Then there is a group of patients who fall into the range in between. At the lower end of this range are so-called ‘marginal agents,’ which include young children and patients in the middle stages of Alzheimer’s disease. They also do not meet the typical requirements for autonomy, which is why they are usually granted fewer autonomy rights. However, some of them are capable of ‘pre-forms’ of autonomy that express what is important to them. These pre-forms differ from mere desires and reflect the identification/authenticity condition of autonomy. They have something in common with autonomous attitudes, choices, and actions – namely, they express thevalueof autonomy. As I will argue, autonomy is a value worthy of protection and promotion – even in its non-reflexive forms. Against this background, it becomes clearwhywe have autonomy duties, more precisely positive, autonomy-enabling duties, towards marginal agents and why we should give them as much attention as autonomy duties towards competent patients.
Funder
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference89 articles.
1. Schmidhuber, Martina. 2013. Verlieren Demenzbetroffene ihre personale Identität? In Personale Identität, Narrativität und Praktische Rationalität. Die Einheit der Person aus metaphysischer und praktischer Perspektive, eds. Georg Gasser, and Martina Schmidhuber, 295–311. Münster: Mentis.
2. Jaworska, Agnieszka. 1999. Respecting the margins of agency: Alzheimer’s patients and the capacity to value. Philosophy & Public Affairs 28: 105–138.
3. Sabat, Steven R. 1998. Voices of Alzheimer’s disease sufferers: a call for treatment based on personhood. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 9: 35–48.
4. Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. London: Fontana Press.
5. Väyrynen, Pekka. 2021. Thick ethical concepts. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/thick-ethical-concepts/. Accessed 26 January 2023.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献