Autonomy and Its Limits: The View from Genomics

Chapter

Abstract

The important notion of autonomy has already been introduced. In this chapter, we look more closely at different philosophical and everyday understandings of the concept. This includes contrasting autonomy used as a descriptive term and as a normative term; negative and positive approaches to autonomy; the scope of autonomy; and the relation of autonomy to community and other values as well as alternatives to protecting and valuing individuals. Applications of these ideas to particular genomics research projects are illustrated. Important limits to our autonomy are examined through a discussion of the findings of research by Stanley Milgram on obedience to authority which draws out the particular implications of this for research ethics, especially within an institutional context.

Keywords

Genomic Research Difference Principle Autonomous Control Individual Autonomy Ethic Consultation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arendt H (1994) Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Boddington P (1998) Organ donation after death – should I decide, or should my family? J Appl Philos 15(1):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buss S (2008) Personal autonomy. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Christman J (2011) Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Crisp R (1997) Mill on utilitarianism. Routledge Philosophy Guidebooks. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. de Vries J, Bull S, Doumbo O, Ibrahim M, Mercereau-Puijalon O, Kwiatkowski D, Parker M (2011) Ethical issues in human genomics research in developing countries. BMC Med Ethics 12(1):5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downie RS, Telfer E (1969) Respect for persons. George Allen and Unwin Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. HapMap Consortium (2004) Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap project. Nat Rev Genet 5:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hofmann B (2009) Broadening consent and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 35(2):125–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hume D (1957) An inquiry concerning the principles of morals. Bobbs Merril Company Inc., IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaye J, Stranger M (eds) (2009) Principles and practice of biobank governance. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM (2008) From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 9(5):406–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, Wjst M (2008) Informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Med 5(9):e192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Mill JS (1864) On liberty, 3rd edn. Longman Green Roberts Longman and Green, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Muller-Hill B (1998) Murderous science: elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies and others in Germany, 1933–1945. Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Oxford English Dictionary (2011) Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Personal Genomes Project. http://www.personalgenomes.org. Accessed July 2011
  19. Price D (2005) The human tissue act 2004. Modern Law Rev 68(5):798–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rawls J (1972) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Roget PM (1936) Thesaurus of English words and phrases. Longmans, Green and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Smart JJC, Williams B (1973) Utilitarianism for and against. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Stanford Prison Experiment: a simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment carried out at Stanford University. http://www.prisonexp.org/. Accessed July 2011
  24. Walker R (2008) Medical ethics needs a new view of autonomy. J Med Philos 33(6):594–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Somerville CollegeOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations