ZusammenfassungEs ist ein Standard-Verfahren der Medizinethik, auf die Möglichkeit des Missbrauchs solcher Instrumente hinzuweisen, die im lege-artis-Gebrauch legitim sein können. Ein etabliertes Instrument der medizinischen Praxis sind paternalistische Handlungen, die bei geringer Reichweite individueller Entscheidungskompetenz, etwa bei Minderjährigen, verantwortliches Handeln absichern sollen. In der bisherigen Debatte wird Paternalismus als Problem eines ungerechtfertigten oder übermäßigen Gebrauchs diskutiert. Bislang erscheint in der medizinethischen Paternalismus-Debatte das Problem des scheinbaren Paternalismus zu wenig reflektiert. Auch die Thematik der sexualisierten Gewalt gegen Minderjährige im medizinischen Setting (...) ist bisher wenig beachtet worden. Für diese spezifische Form der Gewalt gibt es verschiedene Ermöglichungsbedingungen. Eine wichtige liegt in der Akzeptanz paternalistischer Handlungen im medizinischen Kontext. Denn ein scheinbarer Paternalismus im Zusammenhang mit sexualisierter Gewalt gegen Minderjährige profitiert von der Praxis des passageren Übergehens des aktuellen Willens eines Kindes. Der prominente Fall Larry Nassars, der als Teamarzt der US-Kunstturnerinnen in hunderten Fällen junge Patientinnen sexualisierter Gewalt ausgesetzt hat, macht auf die Möglichkeit sexualisierter Gewalt durch medizinisches Personal aufmerksam. Geht es in der Paternalismus-Debatte um die Frage, in welchen Zusammenhängen Paternalismus problematisch oder unproblematisch ist, so trägt diese Studie den Problemaspekt der Täuschung im Zusammenhang mit sexualisierter Gewalt bei. Sie leistet damit einerseits einen Beitrag zur Thematisierung sexualisierter Gewalt im klinischen Kontext, und sie trägt zum anderen zur medizinethischen Diskussion des Paternalismus bei, die nicht von der Möglichkeit des Schein-Paternalismus absehen sollte. Unter Schein-Paternalismus oder fingiertem Paternalismus wird hier eine Haltung und Praxis verstanden, die in der Gestalt eines Paternalismus eigene Interessen des Agierenden zum Schaden der in Abhängigkeit befindlichen Person verfolgt und Fürsorgepflichten ignoriert. Denn die kindliche Gewöhnung an die Unterordnung des eigenen Willens und Körpers im asymmetrischen klinischen Kontext kann dazu genutzt werden, fingierten Paternalismus zu etablieren. Die Rede vom Schein-Paternalismus soll dabei aber nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass die Grenzziehung zwischen Paternalismus und Nicht-Paternalismus in der Praxis ebenso komplex ist wie diejenige zwischen körperlich-asexueller und körperlich-sexueller Gewalt. Ein präzises und transparentes lege-artis-Modell des Paternalismus soll hier als Basis für die Prävention sexualisierter Gewalt im klinischen Kontext diskutiert werden. Methodisch basiert diese Arbeit auf einer Auswertung der interdisziplinären Fachliteratur zur sexualisierten Gewalt im klinischen Kontext und zum Paternalismus. Es folgt dann eine Zusammenfügung der so gewonnenen Erkenntnisse, sodass am Ende eine komplexere Aussage AB über das Verhältnis von sexualisierter Gewalt und Schein-Paternalismus steht. (shrink)

Seat belt mandates seem like a paradigmatic case of justified paternalism. Even those who generally object to paternalism often concede that seat belt laws are justified. Against this near-consensus in favor of mandates, I argue that seat belt laws are unjust and public officials should not enforce them. The most plausible exceptions to a principle of anti-paternalism do not justify seat belt mandates. Some argue that seat belt mandates are not paternalistic because unbelted riders are not fully autonomous. Others claim (...) that the decision to ride unbelted harms other people. Yet these attempts to defend seat belt mandates on non-paternalistic grounds cannot overcome the case against seat belt mandates. I therefore conclude that even seat belt mandates are unjust. With this comprehensive case against seat belt mandates, I demonstrate the more general difficulties in justifying any form of coercive paternalism. (shrink)

_ Source: _Page Count 24 Seat belt mandates seem like a paradigmatic case of justified paternalism. Even those who generally object to paternalism often concede that seat belt laws are justified. Against this near-consensus in favor of mandates, I argue that seat belt laws are unjust and public officials should not enforce them. The most plausible exceptions to a principle of anti-paternalism do not justify seat belt mandates. Some argue that seat belt mandates are not paternalistic because unbelted riders are (...) not fully autonomous. Others claim that the decision to ride unbelted harms other people. Yet these attempts to defend seat belt mandates on non-paternalistic grounds cannot overcome the case against seat belt mandates. I therefore conclude that _even_ seat belt mandates are unjust. With this comprehensive case against seat belt mandates, I demonstrate the more general difficulties in justifying any form of coercive paternalism. (shrink)

Many liberal egalitarians support laws that prevent people from making exploitative and unconscionable contracts. These contracts may include low-wage labor agreements or payday loans, for example. I argue that liberal egalitarians should rethink their support for laws that limit the freedom to make these illiberal contracts, as long as the contracts are voluntary and do not violate people’s other enforceable rights. Paternalistic considerations cannot justify limits on illiberal contracts because they are not only likely to misfire; they also express condescending (...) and inegalitarian judgments of citizens. I then consider Seana Shiffrin’s argument that officials may avoid paternalism while still deterring illiberal contracts if they instead refuse to use public institutions to accommodate contracts that are contrary to the fundamental values on which those institutions are based. This argument encounters a dilemma. Officials may refuse to enforce illiberal contracts and ban private enforcement of illiberal contracts, but this strategy encounters the charges of paternalism it aimed to avoid. Or, officials may refuse to enforce illiberal contracts but tolerate private enforcement, but this approach would make the worst off members of society even more vulnerable and marginalized. Therefore, liberal egalitarians should support public enforcement of illiberal contracts because the alternatives are worse. (shrink)

:Contemporary global governance is organized around an odd pairing: care and control. On the one hand, much of global governance is designed to reduce human suffering and improve human flourishing, with the important caveat that individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. On the other hand, these global practices of care are also entangled with acts of control. Peacebuilding, public health, emergency aid, human rights, and development are expressions of this tension between (...) care and control. There is a concept that captures this tension: paternalism. Drawing on our moral intuitions, I argue that paternalism is the attempt by one actor to substitute his judgment for another actor's on the grounds that such an imposition will improve the welfare of the target actor. After discussing and defending this definition, I note how our unease with paternalism seems to grow as we scale up from the interpersonal to the international, which I argue owes to the evaporation of community and equality. After exploring the implications of this definition and distinguishing it from other forms of intervention, I consider how different elements of paternalism combine to generate different configurations. Specifically, I point to five dimensions that are most relevant for examining the paternalism found in contemporary global and humanitarian governance: the tools used to restrict another actor’s liberty ; the scope of the interference ; the purpose of the intervention ; the source of the paternalizer’s confidence ; and the mechanisms of accountability. These different elements often correlate historically, suggestive of two ideal types of global paternalism: strong and weak. Contemporary global and humanitarian governance is largely the weak variety: force is severely proscribed, interference is relatively restricted, the paternalizer’s confidence has epistemic roots, and accountability to local populations remains a noble but rarely practiced goal. I further speculate that a major reason for this difference is the effects of liberalism and rationalization. I use this taxonomy to suggest how two different global efforts to improve the lives of those peoples living in what were perceived to be unstable and illiberal territories — the civilizing missions of the nineteenth century and the peacebuilding operations of the post-Cold War period — exhibited different kinds of paternalism. I conclude by reflecting on the ethics of international paternalism. (shrink)