David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (4):495-505 (2009)
In the United States, disease screening is offered to the public as a consumer service. It has been proposed that the act of “consumption” is a manifestation of agency and that the decision to consume is an exercise of autonomy. The enthusiasm of the American public for disease screening and the expansion in the demand for all sorts of disease screening in recent years can be viewed as an expression of such autonomy. Here, we argue that the enthusiasm for disease screening witnessed in the American public today may be more a reflection of the constraint on autonomy than its facilitation. It is our opinion that the articulation of socio-historical processes has contributed to a moral imperative which is reflected in the decision making of individuals around disease screening. We suggest medical and health professionals have a responsibility to facilitate the exercise of individual autonomy in health care decision making as an integral component of professional obligation. These professionals need to problematise healthcare activities that constrain individual autonomy.
|Keywords||Bioethics Risk and health Autonomy Disease screening Professional obligations|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
Tom L. Beauchamp (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Ingrid Burger & Nancy Kass (2009). Screening in the Dark: Ethical Considerations of Providing Screening Tests to Individuals When Evidence is Insufficient to Support Screening Populations. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (4):3-14.
Michel Foucault (1994). The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Vintage Books.
Helen Lambert (1999). Caring for the Well: Perspectives on Disease Prevention. In Tamara Kohn & Rosemary McKechnie (eds.), Extending the Boundaries of Care: Medical Ethics and Caring Practices. Berg. 111--134.
Alan Petersen (2003). Governmentality, Critical Scholarship, and the Medical Humanities. Journal of Medical Humanities 24 (3/4):187-201.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Edmund D. Pellegrino (1984). Autonomy and Coercion in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (1).
Wim J. M. Dekkers (2001). Autonomy and Dependence: Chronic Physical Illness and Decision-Making Capacity. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (2):185-192.
Robert H. Blank (1982). Public Policy Implications of Human Genetic Technology: Genetic Screening. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (4):355-374.
Sahin Aksoy (2001). Antenatal Screening and its Possible Meaning From Unborn Baby's Perspective. BMC Medical Ethics 2 (1):1-11.
Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe (2009). Shared Decision-Making and Patient Autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.
Henk Ten Have (2000). Re-Evaluating Professional Autonomy in Health Care. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (5).
Mark Greene & Suzanne M. Smith (2008). Consenting to Uncertainty: Challenges for Informed Consent to Disease Screening—a Case Study. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (6):371-386.
Candace Cummins Gauthier (2005). The Virtue of Moral Responsibility and the Obligations of Patients. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (2):153 – 166.
Victoria Seavilleklein (2009). Challenging the Rhetoric of Choice in Prenatal Screening. Bioethics 23 (1):68-77.
Added to index2009-09-28
Total downloads6 ( #162,810 of 1,088,384 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?