2 ms·

Autonomy isn't a meaningful principle when it comes to medicine. Even patients who are doctors can't really give informed consent since they won't necessarily b

Autonomy isn't a meaningful principle when it comes to medicine. Even patients who are doctors can't really give informed consent since they won't necessarily be knowledgeable in the specialty relevant to their treatment. And the vast majority of patients aren't doctors.

delecti 8y ago
Not to invoke a slippery slope argument, but there are a lot of really horrible things that have been done without giving patients autonomy. We as a society need to consider it extremely carefully before any instance of acting against a patient's bodily autonomy.
- 794CD01 8y ago
  It would be interesting to compare that against the horrible things people do because they do have autonomy.
  - delecti 8y ago
    If horrible things are being done to people, I'd pick the ones those people are doing to themselves almost every time over the ones being done to others in violation of their bodily autonomy.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    The whole point of autonomy is that there is an ethical difference between doing something to yourself, vs. doing something to someone else.
    - 794CD01 8y ago
      Yes. Obviously you'd narrow things down and compare like to like. Anti-vaxers being the hot example of the day. Sometimes it's so obvious that we act on it, like with secondhand smoking, but I bet there's a lot more to dig into.
snowwrestler 8y ago
Autonomy means that you get to consent (or not) even if you are not informed.
- 794CD01 8y ago
  Right, that's the problem. The fact that doctors must ask for the consent of people who don't understand what they are consenting to. The idea itself isn't that controversial - age of majority laws for contracts, voting, and even medical treatment clearly acknowledge the idea that some people are too young to know what they are agreeing to, so the decision should be made by someone else who takes responsibility for them (most things), or there should be no decision because there doesn't need to be one (voting). We just need to refine our understanding to reflect the reality that as old as you may get, you will never understand some things.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    Autonomy is not a problem of medical treatment, it's a fundamental principle of an ethical society. Without autonomy, the concepts of voluntary/involuntary lose meaning, which can enable some very nasty scenarios. Exceptions to autonomy are rare and come with stringent legal duties and obligations on the responsible party. Doctors are not responsible for their patients in that way; they are service providers. Lack of understanding should not be sufficient to undercut an ethical principle like autonomy. Imagine if I had the power to decide that you don't sufficiently understand the concept of autonomy, and must be shipped off to a re-education center.
    - ArchTypical 8y ago
      > Autonomy is not a problem of medical treatment, Talking about it outside of the specific conflict, is disingenuous. Everyone understands how important Autonomy is. That's part of the issue, not a supporting argument to value it over the health of a patient. If there's no patient, there's no Autonomy either.
      - 8y ago

delecti 8y ago

Not to invoke a slippery slope argument, but there are a lot of really horrible things that have been done without giving patients autonomy. We as a society need to consider it extremely carefully before any instance of acting against a patient's bodily autonomy.

794CD01 8y ago
It would be interesting to compare that against the horrible things people do because they do have autonomy.
- delecti 8y ago
  If horrible things are being done to people, I'd pick the ones those people are doing to themselves almost every time over the ones being done to others in violation of their bodily autonomy.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  The whole point of autonomy is that there is an ethical difference between doing something to yourself, vs. doing something to someone else.
  - 794CD01 8y ago
    Yes. Obviously you'd narrow things down and compare like to like. Anti-vaxers being the hot example of the day. Sometimes it's so obvious that we act on it, like with secondhand smoking, but I bet there's a lot more to dig into.

snowwrestler 8y ago

Autonomy means that you get to consent (or not) even if you are not informed.

794CD01 8y ago
Right, that's the problem. The fact that doctors must ask for the consent of people who don't understand what they are consenting to. The idea itself isn't that controversial - age of majority laws for contracts, voting, and even medical treatment clearly acknowledge the idea that some people are too young to know what they are agreeing to, so the decision should be made by someone else who takes responsibility for them (most things), or there should be no decision because there doesn't need to be one (voting). We just need to refine our understanding to reflect the reality that as old as you may get, you will never understand some things.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Autonomy is not a problem of medical treatment, it's a fundamental principle of an ethical society. Without autonomy, the concepts of voluntary/involuntary lose meaning, which can enable some very nasty scenarios. Exceptions to autonomy are rare and come with stringent legal duties and obligations on the responsible party. Doctors are not responsible for their patients in that way; they are service providers. Lack of understanding should not be sufficient to undercut an ethical principle like autonomy. Imagine if I had the power to decide that you don't sufficiently understand the concept of autonomy, and must be shipped off to a re-education center.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > Autonomy is not a problem of medical treatment, Talking about it outside of the specific conflict, is disingenuous. Everyone understands how important Autonomy is. That's part of the issue, not a supporting argument to value it over the health of a patient. If there's no patient, there's no Autonomy either.
    - 8y ago