Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
I greatly appreciate the insightful commentaries of Adrienne Martin, James Stacey Taylor and Nir Eyal.1–3 Here I will try to clarify a few points in response.
My goal is to show that prescription requirements entail a degree of paternalism that is inconsistent with the value of medical autonomy. The commentators are right to suggest that I further clarify how I understand the value of autonomy. I agree with Martin that the most compelling justification for the value of autonomy comes from Kantian ethics.
There are two kinds of Kantians—those who argue that we should (at least to some extent) promote people's autonomous capacities and those who argue that we should respect autonomous choices even when they are destructive to one's capacities. Martin seems sympathetic to the first kind when she endorses a prohibition on self-destructive acts and rigorous informational requirements. While I have not argued for it here, I …
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
- Feature article
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Three arguments against prescription requirements
- The value of autonomy and the right to self-medication
- Advance decisions in dementia: when the past conflicts with the present
- Double standards and arguments for tobacco regulation
- Reconciling informed consent with prescription drug requirements
- Commentary on ‘Three arguments against prescription requirements’
- Ethics of placebo use in clinical practice: why we need to look beyond deontology
- Highlights from this issue
- Substituted decision making and the dispositional choice account
- Theoretical resources for a globalised bioethics