David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (3):267-291 (2004)
Honoring a living will typically involves treating an incompetent patient in accord with preferences she once had, but whose objects she can no longer understand. How do we respect her precedent autonomy by giving her what she used to want? There is a similar problem with subsequent consent: How can we justify interfering with someone''s autonomy on the grounds that she will later consent to the interference, if she refuses now?Both problems arise on the assumption that, to respect someone''s autonomy, any preferences we respect must be among that person''s current preferences. I argue that this is not always true. Just as we can celebrate an event long after it happens, so can we respect someone''s wishes long before or after she has that wish. In the contexts of precedent autonomy and subsequent consent, the wishes are often preferences about which of two other, conflicting preferences to satisfy. When someone has two conflicting preferences, and a third preference on how to resolve that conflict, to respect his autonomy we must respect that third preference. People with declining competence may have a resolution preference earlier, favoring the earlier conflicting preference (precedent autonomy), whereas those with rising competence may have it later, favoring the later conflicting preference (subsequent consent). To respect autonomy in such cases we must respect not a current, but a former or later preference.
|Keywords||advance directive autonomy hierarchical theory of the will living will precedent autonomy prospective autonomy self-paternalism subsequent consent|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Tom Dougherty (2014). Fickle Consent. Philosophical Studies 167 (1):25-40.
Anthony Wrigley (2015). Moral Authority and Proxy Decision-Making. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):631-647.
Similar books and articles
L. B. McCullough & Alan W. Cross (1985). Respect for Autonomy and Medical Paternalism Reconsidered. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 6 (3).
Eric Chwang (2009). A Defense of Subsequent Consent. Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (1):117-131.
Jos V. M. Welie & Sander P. K. Welie (2001). Patient Decision Making Competence: Outlines of a Conceptual Analysis. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (2):127-138.
David Archard (2008). Informed Consent: Autonomy and Self-Ownership. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (1):19-34.
James Wilson (2007). Is Respect for Autonomy Defensible? Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (6):353-356.
N. Stoljar (2011). Informed Consent and Relational Conceptions of Autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (4):375-384.
Emma C. Bullock (2010). Informed Consent as Waiver: The Doctrine Rethought? Ethical Perspectives 17 (4):529-555.
Iain Law (2011). Respect for Autonomy: Its Demands and Limits in Biobanking. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 19 (3):259-268.
Sheila McLean (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #80,943 of 1,780,773 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #107,025 of 1,780,773 )
How can I increase my downloads?