Abstract
It is frequently argued that home birth is morally irresponsible because it involves the taking of risks on behalf of the fetus. Against this position, I argue three things. First, the fact that home birth involves risks does not necessarily entail that choosing or attending one is morally unacceptable, irresponsible or wrong. Second, parents have a prima facia prerogative to decide on behalf of their fetuses and children whether risks should be taken. While this prima facia prerogative can be overridden, reasonable and widely accepted criteria for doing so are not met in the case of home birth. Third, since the current attitudes and behaviours of physicians with regard to home birth constitute a de facto morally and socially unjustifiable overriding of an informed parental decision, physician autonomy should be restricted so as to preserve the autonomy of the medical consumer.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Paul Thompson is Associate Professor of Philosophy in the University of Toronto. He has numerous publications in philosophy of science and in applied ethics and currently is finishing a book on theory structure in biology.
Previous versions of this paper were read at the University of Waterloo and York University. I am grateful for constructive comments on both occasions and especially those of Jan Narveson and Donald McNiven. I also am grateful to physicians John McCulloch and Maarten Bokhout for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, P. Home birth: Consumer choice and restriction of physician autonomy. J Bus Ethics 6, 481–487 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383290
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383290