This philosophical inquiry examines the nature of the technology of genetic predisposition testing and its relation to patients as whole persons. The bioethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice are judged insufficient to resolve issues associated with use. A new principle of ‘sustained being’, drawn from philosophical propositions of Pellegrino, is suggested. The new principle is suited to an evolving practice and is compatible with consequentialist, deontological and relational ethics theories. The notion of ‘taking care’ is related to nursing (...) in genetic health care to form a standard of conduct and a moral imperative to ‘safeguard being’. (shrink)

The decline in the interest in ethical theory is first outlined, as a background to the author’s discussion of principlism. The author’s own stance, that of a communitarian philosopher, is then described, before the subject of principlism itself is addressed. Two problems stand in the way of the author’s embracing principlism: its individualistic bias and its capacity to block substantive ethical inquiry. The more serious problem the author finds to be its blocking function. Discussing the four scenarios the author finds (...) that the utility of principlism is shown in the two scenarios about Jehovah’s Witnesses but that when it comes to selling kidneys for transplantation and germline enhancement, principlism is of little help. (shrink)

Since the late 1960s, the legal doctrine of consent has occasionally been subject to severe criticism from within the bioethical discourse. The criticism was often based on observations indicating that consents and refusals, which had been considered valid from legal or institutional points of view, had frequently failed to reflect genuinely autonomous decision making, hence genuinely autonomous choices.This has led several critics to conclude that informed consent is a legal fiction. To clarify the concept, a legal fiction is a supposition (...) of fact taken to be true by the courts of law, irrespective of whether it is true or not, and even though it might not be true .1 What these critics probably meant to say was that the law deems any person who has given a legally valid consent to be genuinely task specifically autonomous, regardless of whether this is true or not and even though it might not be true. In other words, informed consent is a legal fiction, since it presupposes—that is, claims to reflect—genuine task specific autonomy, however baselessly.It was precisely this potentially embarrassing conclusion that prompted Faden and Beauchamp to develop a brilliant and remarkably effective argument in defence of the legal doctrine of consent. In their seminal work, AHistory and Theory of Informed Consent, they indeed acknowledged that effective consent often fails to be compatible with autonomous authorisation . Indeed, they recognised that effective consent does not necessarily entail autonomous authorisation. They argued, however, that the former is not a legal fiction, since it does not presuppose the …. (shrink)