Article Text
Abstract
There is significant controversy over whether patients have a ‘right not to know’ information relevant to their health. Some arguments for limiting such a right appeal to potential burdens on others that a patient’s avoidable ignorance might generate. This paper develops this argument by extending it to cases where refusal of relevant information may generate greater demands on a publicly funded healthcare system. In such cases, patients may have an ‘obligation to know’. However, we cannot infer from the fact that a patient has an obligation to know that she does not also have a right not to know. The right not to know is held against medical professionals at a formal institutional level. We have reason to protect patients’ control over the information that they receive, even if in individual instances patients exercise this control in ways that violate obligations.
- informed consent
- autonomy
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors BD is the sole author of this work.
Funding This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust, grant 104848/Z/14/Z.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement There are no data in this work
Linked Articles
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Response
Other content recommended for you
- Obligations and preferences in knowing and not knowing: the importance of context
- Healthcare professionals’ responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease
- Cursed lamp: the problem of spontaneous abortion
- Ignorance is bliss? HIV and moral duties and legal duties to forewarn
- Dotting the I's and crossing the T's: autonomy and/or beneficence? The ‘fetus as a patient’ in maternal–fetal surgery
- Conscientious objection and the referral requirement as morally permissible moral mistakes
- Scientific research is a moral duty
- The ethics of and the appropriate legislation concerning killing people and letting them die: a response to Merkel
- The ethics of killing and letting die: active and passive euthanasia
- To kill is not the same as to let die: a reply to Coggon