Abstract
The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is an extraordinarily ambitious document. It seeks to “provide a universal framework of principles and procedures to guide States in the formulation of their legislation, policies or other instruments in the field of bioethics” (Universal Declaration, Art. 2(a), 2005). Few, if any, intergovernmental instruments match its breadth in terms of subject matter covered (“ethical issues related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as applied to human beings, taking into account their social, legal and environmental dimensions”) (Universal Declaration, Art. 1, 2005). It is also notable for the unusually vast audience to whom it is addressed. Not only is it meant to offer advice to member states but also “to guide the actions of individuals, groups, communities, institutions and corporations, public and private” (Universal Declaration, Art. 2(b), 2005). The Declaration has received some attention from scholars and policy makers, both positive and negative. UNESCO itself has taken steps to circulate and promote it, including by publishing commentaries on its various provisions, authored by invited contributors, including the International Bioethics Committee itself. But one aspect of the Declaration has not yet received the attention it deserves, namely, its treatment of autonomy as an ethical principle. Whereas autonomy has been accorded pride of place as the dominant ethical principle in mainstream bioethics for decades, the Declaration offers a strikingly different approach. That is, it subordinates autonomy to other goods such as human dignity, solidarity, and protection of the vulnerable. In this way, the Declaration recovers and restores the original key animating good for public bioethics that gave rise to this new species of law and policy in the first instance. It marks an important return to the foundational principle of respect for persons.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1983). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bosk, C. L. (1992). All god’s mistakes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burt, R. (1977). The limits of law in regulating health care decisions. The Hastings Center Report, 7(6), 29–32.
Davis, F. D. (2008). Human dignity and respect for persons, Chap. 2. President’s Council on bioethics, human dignity and bioethics.
Jonsen, A. R. (2003). The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lysaught, M. T. (2004). Respect: Or, how respect for persons became respect for autonomy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29(6), 665–680.
Macklin, R. (2003). Dignity is a useless concept. British Medical Journal, 329(7429), 1419–1420. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1419.
Meilaender, G. (1998). Body, soul and bioethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1999). Ethical issues in human stem cell research. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/human/overvol1.html
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetics and human behaviour. London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Genetics%20and%20human%20behaviour.pdf
Pinker, S. (2008, May 28). The stupidity of dignity. The New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/the-stupidity-dignity
Pub. Law No. 93–348, 88 Stat 342
Schneider, C. E. (1994). Bioethics in the language of the law. Hastings Center Report, 24(4), 16–22.
Schneider, C. E. (1994b). Bioethics with a human face. Indiana Law Journal, 69(4), 1075–1104.
Snead, O. C. (2010). Science, public bioethics, and the problem of integration. University of California Davis Law Review, 42(5), 1529–1604.
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. (2005). Articles 2(a), 2(b), 2(c).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Snead, O.C., Mulder-Westrate, K. (2014). Autonomy and Individual Responsibility. In: ten Have, H., Gordijn, B. (eds) Handbook of Global Bioethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_68
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_68
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2511-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2512-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law