Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 217–227

Agency and authenticity: Which value grounds patient choice?

Article

Abstract

In current American medical practice, autonomy is assumed to be more valuable than human life: if a patient autonomously refuses lifesaving treatment, the doctors are supposed to let him die. In this paper we discuss two values that might be at stake in such clinical contexts. Usually, we hear only of autonomy and best interests. However, here, autonomy is ambiguous between two concepts—concepts that are tied to different values and to different philosophical traditions. In some cases, the two values (that of agency and that of authenticity) entail different outcomes. We argue that the comparative value of these values needs to be assessed.

Keywords

Agency Authenticity Autonomy Best interests Kant Mill 

References

  1. 1.
    Halpern, Jodi. 2001. From detached concern to empathy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman, Lawrence. 2006. The man on the table devised the surgery. New York Times, December 25.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kant, Immanuel. 1996. The metaphysics of morals. Trans. and ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foot, Philippa. 2001. Natural goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mill, John Stuart. 1989. On liberty. In On liberty and other writings, ed. Stefan Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feinberg, Joel. 1986. The moral limits of the criminal law. Harm to self, vol 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siegler, Mark, and Ann Dudley Goldblatt. 1981. Clinical intuition: A procedure for balancing the rights of patients and the responsibilities of physicians. In The law-medicine relation: A philosophical exploration, ed. S.F. Spicker, J.M. Healey, and H.T. Engelhardt, 5–31. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darwall, Stephen. 2006. The second person standpoint. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darwall, Stephen. 2006. The value of autonomy and autonomy of the will. Ethics 116: 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frankfurt, Harry. 1988. The importance of what we care about. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frankfurt, Harry. 1999. Necessity, volition, and love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korsgaard, Christine. 2009. Self-constitution: Agency, identity, and integrity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strawson, Galen. 2004. Against narrativity. Ratio 17: 428–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dworkin, Gerald. 2010. Paternalism. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.University of Missouri at Kansas City and Children’s Mercy Bioethics CenterKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations