Abstract
Respecting autonomy has been an important principle for medical ethics since Beauchamp and Childress wrote their famous monograph, Principles of Biomedical Ethics. The principle of autonomy often seems to dominate the solutions given for bioethical issues in both Eastern and Western societies. Recently a number of Korean scholars have criticized the principle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Here I use “family” to refer to a group of people who are related to each other by marriage and/or blood ties, such as grand-parents, parents, their children, the siblings of parents and their children, etc. However, the scope of “family” may vary depending on an individual’s perception. According to Article 779 of the Korean Civil Act, family is legally defined as follows: “(1) Family members shall consist of the following persons: 1. The spouse, lineal blood relatives, and brothers and sisters; and 2. Spouses of the lineal blood relatives, lineal blood relatives of the spouse, and brothers and sisters of the spouse. (2) In the case of paragraph (1), subparagraph 2, it shall be limited to those cases where they share living accommodations.” Here “lineal blood relatives” means “father, mother, and their father and mother” and “son, daughter, and their son and daughter.” Unlike the Act, most Korean people seem to think that family members are persons mentioned in paragraph (1), ignoring paragraph (2). I will use “family” consisting of persons mentioned in the paragraph (1). For reference, Article 777 defines “relatives” as “1. Blood relatives within the eighth degree of relationship. 2. Affinity relatives within the fourth degree of relationship.” Here the first degree of relationship is one between parents and their offspring whereas the second is between siblings.
- 2.
The 2011 Organ Transplantation Act in Korea allows a family’s refusal of organ donation even if a donor has expressed his/her explicit wishes to donate his/her organ(s). This shows that one’s autonomous decision is thoroughly disvalued.
References
Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Callahan, D. 2003. Individual good and common good: A communitarian approach to bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46 (4): 496–507.
Etzioni, A. 2011. On a communitarian approach to bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32:363–374
Fan, R. 1997. Self-determination vs. family-determination: Two incommensurable principles of autonomy. Bioethics 11:309–322.
Hardwig, J. 1990. What about the family? Hastings Center Report 20 (2): 5–10.
Hardwig, J. 1997. Is there a duty to die? Hastings Center Report 21(2): 34–42.
Kant, I. (1873) 1998. Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals. Trans: T. K. Abbott. In Ethics: History, theory, and contemporary issues, ed. S. M. Cahn and P. Markie, 275–318. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, B. L. 1981. Autonomy and the refusal of lifesaving treatment: Four cases, four senses of autonomy. The Hastings Center Report 11:22–28.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Choi, K. (2015). The Ideal of Autonomy and Its Misuse. In: Fan, R. (eds) Family-Oriented Informed Consent. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 121. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12120-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12120-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12119-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12120-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)