The relative importance of undesirable truths


Authors
Lisa Bortolotti
University of Birmingham
Abstract
The right not to know is often defended on the basis of the principle of respect for personal autonomy. If I choose not to acquire personal information that impacts on my future prospects, such a choice should be respected, because I should be able to decide whether to access information about myself and how to use it. But, according to the incoherence objection to the right not to know in the context of genetic testing, the choice not to acquire genetic information undermines the capacity for autonomous decision making. The claim is that it is incoherent to defend a choice that is inimical to autonomy by appealing to autonomy. In this paper, I suggest that the choice not to know in the context of genetic testing does not undermine self-authorship, which is a key aspect of autonomous decision making. In the light of this, the incoherence objection to the right not to know seems less compelling.
Keywords autonomy  genetic testing  right not to know
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11019-012-9449-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,395
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Free Choice and Patient Best Interests.Emma C. Bullock - 2016 - Health Care Analysis 24 (4):374-392.
Mandatory Disclosure and Medical Paternalism.Emma C. Bullock - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):409-424.
A Moral Problem for Difficult Art.Antony Aumann - 2016 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74 (4):383-396.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Autonomy and Freedom of Choice in Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis.Elisabeth Hildt - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (1):65-72.
The Family Covenant and Genetic Testing.David J. Doukas & Jessica W. Berg - 2001 - American Journal of Bioethics 1 (3):2 – 10.
Autonomy, Consent and the Law.Sheila McLean - 2010 - Routledge-Cavendish.
Genetic Information, Rights, and Autonomy.Matti Häyry & Tuija Takala - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (5):403-414.
How Distinctive is Genetic Information?M. Richards - 2001 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32 (4):663-687.
The Role of Non-Directiveness in Genetic Counseling.Fuat S. Oduncu - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (1):53-63.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-11-06

Total views
18 ( #516,569 of 2,291,328 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #576,757 of 2,291,328 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature