In ‘Epistemic injustice, children and mental Illness,’1 Edward Harcourt uses Miranda Fricker’s concept of testimonial injustice 2 to make sense of claims, from mental health service users, that clinicians do not listen to them. Being listened to matters. It is a sign of respect as a person and associated with better clinical outcomes. TI involves suffering an unfair credibility deficit because of prejudice, so seems like a promising way of understanding service users’ complaints. Harcourt quickly concludes, however, that it is (...) inadequate. Since many service users are not wholly rational, the credibility deficits they suffer could be fair, and thus cannot constitute TI. Undaunted, Harcourt tries to reimagine TI so it can help. He observes that many children are also unfairly discredited by clinicians. Perhaps they are victims of TI, too, in a way that could help resurrect the concept? It may at first seem not: although providers who work with children often discredit them, this may result from mere ignorance, not prejudice. We should not let clinicians off the hook so easily, however, since they work with children, and should know their real capacities. Since they still discredit children, they must be prejudiced. And even further kinds of TI could be perpetrated by clinicians. Fricker assumes that …. (shrink)

McGregor and MacNamee recently, in this journal, offered several criticisms of an earlier article in which I attempted to refute a number of arguments for the claim that doping in sports is morally wrong. Their criticisms are numerous, but focus on four domains. First, they sketch a view on which the risk profiles of different sports may make doping permissible in some and impermissible in others. Second, they suggest that my criticisms of safety-based arguments assume that doping opponents are bent (...) on harm elimination, rather than harm management. Finally, they offer two methodological criticisms, the first pertaining to my use of analogical arguments, and the second pertaining to the general difficulties of making revisionist arguments in ethics. I defend my criticisms of safety-based arguments by showing that these do not rest on the assumptions McGregor and MacNamee attribute to me and by noting that their own view about the variable relevance of safety considerations is underdeveloped. As for their methodological arguments, I endeavor to show that these are misplaced, in that they either rest on misinterpretations of my earlier article or on an excessively high standard for ethical argumentation. (shrink)

Paternalistic interference in autonomous decisions is typically impermissible. This has several explanations, among which is a view I call theagent-constitution of the good: that the autonomous agent not onlyknowswhat is best for herself, butdetermineswhat is best for herself through her desires, goals and so on (heraims). For instance, it might seem that if an autonomous person does choose not to take insulin for her diabetes, then not only is it inappropriate to force treatment upon her, it is also not in (...) her best interest to take insulin. Here I argue that agent-constitution, though appealing, is false. In fact, autonomous agents can be mistaken about their good, even when it seems to depend only upon their aims. Agent-constitution appears true only because we typically fail to notice constraints on a person's good in private, self-regarding decisions where paternalism might be considered. (shrink)

In a recent article, Tyler Tate argues that the suffering of children — especially children with severe cognitive impairments — should be regarded as the antithesis of flourishing, where flourishing is relative to one’s individual characteristics and essentially involves receiving care from others. Although initially persuasive, Tate’s theory is ambiguous in several ways, leading to significant conceptual problems. By identifying flourishing with receiving care, Tate raises questions about the importance of care that he does not address, giving rise to a (...) bootstrapping problem. By making flourishing relative to an individual’s circumstances, Tate is forced to confront questions about exactly how relative it can be, suggesting the possibility that, on his view, to flourish is simply to be however one is. In an attempt to surmount these problems, I offer a revision and restatement of Tate’s view that defines the relationship between individualized flourishing and the more conventional, species-relative concept, and describe more clearly the role that care should play with respect to flourishing — one that is instrumental and not merely constitutive. Even this restated view, however, fails to answer difficult questions about how one should respond to the medical needs of some children, highlighting the fact that a conceptual analysis of suffering may do little, in the end, to untangle ethical dilemmas in the care of severely ill children. (shrink)