Article Text
Abstract
This paper discusses the role of consent in decision making generally and its role in end of life decisions in particular. It outlines a conception of autonomy which explains and justifies the role of consent in decision making and criticises some misapplications of the idea of consent, particular the role of fictitious or “proxy” consents.
Where the inevitable outcome of a decision must be that a human individual will die and where that individual is a person who can consent, then that decision is ethical if and only if the individual consents. In very rare and extreme cases such a decision will be ethical in the absence of consent where it would be massively cruel not to end life in order to prevent suffering which is in no other way preventable.
Where, however, the human individual is not a person, as is the case with abortion, the death of infants like Mary (one of the conjoined twins in a case discussed in the paper), or in the very rare and extreme cases of those who have ceased to be persons like Tony Bland, such decisions are governed by the ethics of ending the lives of non-persons.
- consent
- confidentiality
- end of life decisions
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Minding the gap between logic and intuition: an interpretative approach to ethical analysis
- Euthanasia and other end of life decisions and care provided in final three months of life: nationwide retrospective study in Belgium
- Moral dimensions
- Killing people: what Kant could have said about suicide and euthanasia but did not
- End of life decision-making in neonatal care
- Nurses’ views on their involvement in euthanasia: a qualitative study in Flanders (Belgium)
- Withholding life prolonging treatment, and self deception
- The persistent vegetative state, treatment withdrawal, and the Hillsborough disaster: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland