Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-z7ghp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T20:10:24.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy and Paternalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Robert Young
Robert Young*
Affiliation:
La Trobe University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Paternalism has generally been thought of as forcible or coercive interference with a person's liberty of action which is (believed to be) justified because it will prevent harm to that person's welfare interests or the like. Opposition to paternalistic interference with adults, whether it involves the intervention of the state (legal paternalism) or another adult individual, has usually been based on a concern to preserve human autonomy or self-determination. More strictly it is opposition to so-called ‘strong’ paternalism - interventions to protect or benefit a person despite the person's informed voluntary consent to the contrary- which has been grounded on such a commitment to self-determination. ‘Weak’ paternalism involves interference where there is (or is believed to be) a defect in the decision-making capacities of the person interfered with (or to ascertain whether the person's behaviour is fully reflective). It is claimed to be justifiable insofar as consent to the interference would be forthcoming were these capacities restored.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 8: New Essays in Ethics and Public Policy , 1982 , pp. 47 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Select Bibliography

Arneson, R., ‘Mill versus Paternalism; Ethics, 90 (1980) 470–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayles, M., ‘Criminal Paternalism; in The Limits of Law, Nomos xv (New York: Athlohe 1974) 174–88.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T., ‘On Justifications for Coercive Genetic Engineering; in Biomedical Ethics and the Law, edited by R.F., Almeder and J.M., Humber (New York: Plenum Press 1976).Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T., ‘Paternalism; in Encyclopedia of Bioethics, edited by Reich, Warren T. (New York: Free Press 1978).Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T., ‘Paternalism and Biobehavioral Control’, The Monist, 60 (1977) 62–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, A., ‘Medical Paternalism; Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7 (1977-78) 370–90Google Scholar
Carter, R., ‘Justifying Paternalism; Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7 (1977-78) 133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, L., Positive Liberty (The Hague: Nijhoff 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, G., ‘Paternalism: The Monist, 56 (1972) 6.4–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘Legal Paternalism; Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1 (1971-72) 105–24. (See qualifying remarks in Feinberg's Rights, Justice and the Bounds of Liberty [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1980])CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘The Child's Right to an Open Future; In Whose Child?: Children's Rights, Parental Authority and State Power, edited by W., Aiken and H. La, Follette (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield Adams and Co. 1980).Google Scholar
Fotion, N., ‘Paternalism; Ethics, 89 (1979) 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, B., and C., Culver, ‘Paternalistic Behavior; Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6 (1976-77) 45–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Gert, B., and C., Culver, ‘The Justication of Paternalism; Ethics, 89 (1979) 370–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A, Gutmann, ‘Children, Paternalism and Education; Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9 (1979-80) 338–58.Google Scholar
Harris, C., ‘Paternalism and the Enforcement of Morality; Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, 8 (1977) 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
J., Hodson, ‘The Principle of Paternalism; American Philosophica/Quarterly, 14 (1977) 61–9.Google Scholar
Hospers, J., ‘Libertarianism and Legal Paternalism: Journal of Libertarian Studies, 4 (1980) 255–65.Google Scholar
Husak, D., ‘Paternalism and Autonomy; Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10 (1980-81) 27–46.Google Scholar
May, L., ‘Paternalism and Self-Interest,’ journal of Value Inquiry, 14 (1980) 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S., On Liberty.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., ‘Incompetence and Paternalism,’ Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 60 (1974) 465–86.Google Scholar
Newton, L., ‘Liberty and Laetrile: Implications of Right of Access,’ Journal of Value Inquiry, 15 (1981) 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, D., ‘Justifications for Paternalism,’ in The Limits of Law, Nomos XV (New York: Athlone 1974) 189–210.Google Scholar
Rawls, J., A Theory of justice (Cambridge, MA: Haward University Press 1971).Google Scholar
Robison, W.L. and Pritchard, M.S. (eds.), Medical Responsibility (Clifton, NJ: Humana Press 1979), [various papers].Google Scholar
Ten, C.L., Mill On Liberty, (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1980).Google Scholar
VanDeVeer, D., ‘Paternalism and Subsequent Consent,’ Canadian journal of Philosophy, 9 (1979) 631–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanDeVeer, D., ‘Autonomy-Respecting Paternalism,’ Social Theory and Practice, 6 (1980) 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanDeVeer, D., ‘The Contractual for Withholding Medical Information,’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9 (1979-80) 198–205.Google Scholar
Wikler, D., ‘Paternalism and the Mildly Retarded,’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 8 (1978-79) 377–92.Google Scholar