Abstract
As the previous chapter has shown, the principle of autonomy has been endorsed as the primary rationale for proxy decision making as far as SJS and PAS are concerned. The purpose of this chapter is threefold. First, I will scrutinize critically the principle of autonomy as it is put forth and applied to proxy decision making by its major proponents. Second, I will refer to fundamental flaws in the way this principle is understood, with the main focus on its anthropological and ethical consequences. Third, I will show that autonomy, construed as pure self-determination, underlies not only SJS and PAS, as typically proposed, but also BIS, as a result of autonomy’s decisive impact on the way the notion of good, undergirding the patient’s or research subject’s best interests, is perceived.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, A. E., and D. W. Brock. 1989. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decisionmaking. Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Childress, J. F. 1990. “The Place of Autonomy in Bioethics.” The Hastings Center Report 20(1):12–17.
Di Blasi, F. 2006. God and the Natural Law: A Rereading of Thomas Aquinas. Eng. trans. D. Thunder. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.
Engelhardt, H. T. 1986. The Foundations of Bioethics (1st ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McInerny, R. M. 1997. Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (revised ed.). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Murdoch, I. 1970. The Sovereignty of Good. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
Pellegrino, E. D., and D. C. Thomasma. 1988. For the Patient’s Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pellegrino, E. D., and D. C. Thomasma. 1993. The Virtues in Medical Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pinckaers, S. 1995. The Sources of Christian Ethics. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Ramsey, P. 1978. Ethics at the Edges of Life: Medical and Legal Intersections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Schindler, D. C. 2002. “Freedom Beyond Our Choosing: Augustine on the Will and Its Objects.” Communio 29(4):618–53.
Veatch, R. 1981. A Theory of Medical Ethics. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Veatch, R. M. 1984. “Autonomy’s Temporary Triumph.” The Hastings Center Report 14(5):38–40.
Veatch, R. 1996a. “From Nuremberg Through the 1990s: The Priority of Autonomy.” In The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century, edited by H. Y. Vanderpool, 45–58. Frederick, MD: University Pub. Group.
Veatch, R. 2003. The Basics of Bioethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Plich, R. 2006. “A Presentation and a Critique of T. L. Beauchamp and J. F. Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Washington, DC: The Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mazur, G. (2012). Critique of Proxy Consent Standards. In: Informed Consent, Proxy Consent, and Catholic Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 112. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2196-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2196-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2195-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2196-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)