David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (4):373-386 (2012)
MacDougall (2010) has argued that Rawls‘ liberal social theory suggest that parents who hold certain religious convictions can refuse blood transfusion on their children’s behalf. This paper argues that this is wrong for at least five reasons. First, MacDougall neglects the possibility that true freedom of conscience entails the right to choose one’s own religion rather than have it dictated by one’s parents. Second, he conveniently ignores the fact that children in such situations are much more likely to die than to survive without blood. Third, he relies on an ambiguous understanding of what is “rational” and treats children as mere extensions of their parents. Fourth, he neglects the fact that those in the original position would seek to protect themselves from persecution and enslavement, and thus would not allow categories of children who are killed because of their parents’ beliefs. Finally, Rawls makes it clear that we should choose for children as we would choose for ourselves in the original position, with no particular conception of the good (such as that held by JWs).
|Keywords||Medical ethics Liberalism Refusal of treatment|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
H. A. Phillips (2012). Human: Substance, Relationship, Choice, Value and Nature. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (4):325-330.
Similar books and articles
D. M. Shaw & J. Busch (2012). Rawls and Religious Paternalism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (4):373-386.
D. Robert MacDougall (2010). Rawls and the Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):130-153.
Hugh LaFollette (1989). Freedom of Religion and Children. Public Affairs Quarterly (1):75-87.
Kenneth Hickey & Laurie Lyckholm (2004). Child Welfare Versus Parental Autonomy: Medical Ethics, the Law, and Faith-Based Healing. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):265-276.
Michael S. Merry (2007). The Well-Being of Children, the Limits of Paternalism, and the State: Can Disparate Interests Be Reconciled? Ethics and Education 2 (1):39-59.
Claudia Wiesemann (2009). Off-Label, Off-Limits? Parental Awareness and Attitudes Towards Off-Label Use in Paediatrics. European Journal of Pediatrics 168:1473-1478.
Ferdinand Schoeman (1985). Parental Discretion and Children's Rights: Background and Implications for Medical Decision-Making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (1):45-62.
David Shaw (2011). Justice and the Fetus: Rawls, Children and Abortion. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):93-101.
Timothy F. Murphy (2005). Gay Science: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Sexual Orientation of Children. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10 (Sup. 1):102-106.
Philip Pettit (1974). A Theory of Justice? Theory and Decision 4 (3-4):311-324.
Michael Gill, Picu Prometheus: Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Very Sick Children in Paediatric Intensive Care.
T. M. Wilkinson (2001). Parental Consent and the Use of Dead Children's Bodies. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11 (4):337-358.
Kevin W. Gray (2012). Rawls and the Problem of Honour. Philosophia 40 (2):213-222.
Russell Disilvestro (2005). Human Embryos in the Original Position? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3):285 – 304.
Ger Snik & Johan De Jong (1995). Liberalism and Denominational Schools. Journal of Moral Education 24 (4):395-407.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-11-09
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?