On 10 December 2007 the Akron City School Board ? following the precedent set by many school systems across the United States and the world ? instituted a policy of mandatory school uniforms for all students in grades K?8. The measure was met with mixed reviews. While many parents supported the measure, a small group of parents from a selective, arts-focussed, middle school (grades 4?8) objected to the policy. It was their contention that children attending this particular school should be (...) exempt from the policy since their children were particularly creative, and the new policy constituted an unjust infringement of their child's freedom of expression. In this article I argue that the actions of the school board, while antithetical to freedom of expression in general, do not violate the children's freedom of expression since such a right cannot properly be said to apply to the majority of children within this age group. In arguing this position, I draw on two primary ideas. The first is based on the idea that children's rights exist on a continuum from rights that protect their interests to those that protect their choices. Since the majority of children at the age specified by the policy fall on the interest side of the rights spectrum, restricting their liberty with respect to dress is not morally problematic. Secondly, I draw upon the idea of the distinction between mere expression as opposed to substantive expression to argue that most children, particularly those in the pre-teen years, lack the cognitive ability to exercise the latter. (shrink)

The status quo on parental licensing in most Western jurisdictions is that licensing is required in the case of adoption but not in the case of assisted or unassisted biological reproduction. To have a child via adoption, one must fulfill licensing requirements, which, beyond the usual home study, can include mandatory participation in parenting classes. One is exempt from these requirements, however, if one has a child via biological reproduction, including assisted reproduction involving donor gametes or a contract pregnancy. In (...) an earlier paper, we challenged this system of parental licensing by showing that arguments in favour of it do not succeed. One argument we failed to consider, however, is that prospective biological parents have a right to reproduce that protects them against the sort of state interference that is involved in parental licensing. According to this argument, because prospective adoptive parents do not exercise a similar right when attempting to become parents, they are not similarly protected. In this paper, we argue that this reproductive rights argument, like other arguments in favour of the status quo on parental licensing, is flawed. We also question whether people in fact have a right to reproduce, and in doing so distinguish this right from others that we think are legitimate, including a right to become a parent and a right to bodily autonomy. (shrink)

The traditional liberal view on conflicts between care for wellbeing and respect for choice and desire is that we should look to degrees of competence and voluntariness to determine which moral imperative should take priority. This view has likely influenced the common view that children’s choices should be considered only to the extent that this promotes their future autonomy and helps us determine their best interests. I reject both the general traditional liberal view and its application to children. Competence and (...) voluntariness, as well as maturity, are at best proxies for what really matters, which is wellbeing, choice and desire. We typically have reason to respect children’s choices, irrespective of any further positive consequences. If we should more often make children do what they do not want to do, this is mainly because, though we should care about respecting their choices, we should care even more about their wellbeing and future autonomy. (shrink)

Adolescents, in many jurisdictions, have the power to consent to life saving treatment but not necessarily the power to refuse it. A recent defence of this asymmetry is Neil Manson's theory of ‘transitional paternalism’. Transitional paternalism holds that such asymmetries are by-products of sharing normative powers. However, sharing normative powers by itself does not entail an asymmetry because transitional paternalism can be implemented in two ways. Manson defends the asymmetry-generating version of transitional paternalism in the clinical context, arguing that it (...) maximizes respect for adolescent autonomy. This article offers an alternative argument in favour of the asymmetry-generating form of transitional paternalism, one that makes appeal to obligations that individuals have to develop self-governance in others. We should share normative powers asymmetrically in the clinical context for three reasons. First, the asymmetric version of transitional paternalism takes seriously duties to support adolescents’ developing autonomy, alongside other duties that adults have to young people. It does so by enabling young people to be involved in important decisions that they would otherwise be excluded from. This is of value because participation of this sort is central to the cultivation of their self-governance. Second, only the asymmetric version gives young people a voice in respect of all clinical actions, and only the asymmetric version leaves open the possibility that the coarse lines of legislation might be ‘fine-tuned’ in individual cases. Third, the asymmetric sharing of normative powers is consistent with the kind of social arrangements that best support autonomy. (shrink)

In this project, I argue that the conventional view of personal autonomy that is operational in contemporary American culture, bioethics and medical practice places undue emphasis on individualism and a limited range of personal qualities and attributes (such as self-sufficiency). Instead, I argue in favor of a relational approach to autonomy which recognizes that each person that exists has certain minimal connections or relations to others, and these connections/relations are identity-forming. Unfortunately, current medical practices have tended to overemphasize individuality and (...) choice (consistent with the conventional view) while minimizing or excluding these relational aspects. As a result, informed consent and patient choice have taken the place of a more robust, relational sense of autonomy in these contexts. But this approach fails to appreciate the ways that illness, uncertainty, and suffering may threaten identity and make it more difficult to meaningfully exercise autonomy—especially when construed in such narrow terms. Through an exploration of the nature of suffering and its effects on the person, I argue that to effectively treat ailments and alleviate suffering, patients must be cared for in ways that respect and restore identity, which also promotes autonomy. This kind of respect derives in part from acknowledging and nurturing relationality, especially in medical decision-making contexts. (shrink)