Rawls and Religious Paternalism
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (4):373-386 (2012)
| Abstract | MacDougall has argued that Rawls’s liberal social theory suggests that parents who hold certain religious convictions can legitimately 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 groups of children to be 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 Jehovah’s Witnesses) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid Shaw & Jacob 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.
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.
Philip Pettit (1974). A Theory of Justice? Theory and Decision 4 (3-4):311-324.
Kevin W. Gray (2012). Rawls and the Problem of Honour. Philosophia 40 (2):213-222.
Timothy F. Murphy (2005). Gay Science: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Sexual Orientation of Children. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10 (Sup. 1):102-106.
Russell Disilvestro (2005). Human Embryos in the Original Position? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3):285 – 304.
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.
Morris Lipson & Peter Vallentyne (1991). Libertarianism, Autonomy, And Children. Public Affairs Quarterly 5 (4):333-352.
Amy Mullin (2006). Parents and Children: An Alternative to Selfless and Unconditional Love. Hypatia 21 (1):181-200.
Michael W. Austin (2007). Fundamental Interests and Parental Rights. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2):221-235.
Doret Ruyter Leonie le Sagdee (2008). Criminal Parental Responsibility: Blaming Parents on the Basis of Their Duty to Control Versus Their Duty to Morally Educate Their Children. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (6):789-802.
Michael W. Austin (2007). Fundamental Interests and Parental Rights. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2):221-235.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-08-22Total downloads6 ( #145,458 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
