Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?Edward S. Dove, Susan E. Kelly, Federica Lucivero, Mavis Machirori, Sandi Dheensa & Barbara Prainsack - 2017 - Clinical Ethics 12 (3):150-165.
    The dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of ‘relational autonomy’ in particular have argued that people’s identities, needs, interests – and indeed autonomy – are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  • Who Counts as Family: A Pluralistic Account of Family in the Genetic Context.Serene Ong - 2022 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 15 (2):1-21.
    Genetic information affects patients’ families differently than other types of medical information. Family members might have a compelling interest in patients’ genetic information, but who counts as family? In this article, I assess current definitions of family and propose a pluralistic account of family, which comprises definitions of family based on biomedical, legal, and functional aspects. Respectful of various forms of family, a pluralistic account includes those with interests in genetic information. Finally, I apply it in the hypothetical case of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • ‘Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.’ Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine: Table 1.Sandi Dheensa, Angela Fenwick & Anneke Lucassen - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (3):174-179.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations