Abstract
Douglas Diekema has argued that it is not the best interest standard, but the harm principle that serves as the moral basis for ethicists, clinicians, and the courts to trigger state intervention to limit parental authority in the clinic. Diekema claims the harm principle is especially effective in justifying state intervention in cases of religiously motivated medical neglect in pediatrics involving Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. I argue that Diekema has not articulated a harm principle that is capable of justifying state intervention in these cases. Where disagreements over appropriate care are tethered to metaphysical disagreements, it is moral-metaphysical standards, rather than merely moral standards, that are needed to provide substantive guidance. I provide a discussion of Diekema’s harm principle to the broader end of highlighting an inconsistency between the theory and practice of secular bioethics when overriding religiously based medical decisions. In a secular state, ethicists, clinicians, and the courts are purportedly neutral with respect to moral-metaphysical positions, especially regarding those claims considered to be religious. However, the practice of overriding religiously based parental requests requires doffing the mantle of neutrality. In the search for a meaningful standard by which to override religiously based parental requests in pediatrics, bioethicists cannot avoid some minimal metaphysical commitments. To resolve this inconsistency, bioethicists must either begin permitting religiously based requests, even at the cost of children’s lives, or admit that at least some moral-metaphysical disputes can be rationally adjudicated.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11017-019-09480-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,735
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

After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.Samuel Scheffler - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (3):443.
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.Fred Feldman & J. L. Mackie - 1979 - Philosophical Review 88 (1):134.

View all 34 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Credentialing Ethics Expertise.Abram L. Brummett - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (3):50-52.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Harm Principle.Nils Holtug - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
How Eventful is the Event-Based Theory of Harm?Adam Slavny - 2014 - Journal of Value Inquiry 48 (3):559-571.
J. S. Mill's Re-Conceptualization of Liberty.Robert Allen Garmong - 2002 - Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin
Qué hijos tener. Libertad procreativa, autonomía parental y principio del daño.Blanca Rodríguez López - 2011 - Telos: Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Utilitaristas 18 (1):127-151.
Harm in the Wild: Facing Non-Human Suffering in Nature. [REVIEW]Beril İdemen Sözmen - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1075-1088.
Identifying Harms.Shlomit Harrosh - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (9):493-498.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-02-12

Total views
22 ( #481,259 of 2,432,431 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #295,116 of 2,432,431 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes