Tematem artykułu jest pytanie, czy będąca podmiotem autonomicznym jednostka ma prawo do niewiedzy o własnym stanie zdrowia. Punkt odniesienia dla prowadzonych rozważań stanowi klasyczny artykuł J. Harrisa i K. Keywood pt. Ignorance, Information and Autonomy i zawarte w nim stanowisko, zgodnie z którym rzekome prawo do niewiedzy jest sprzeczne z autonomią. Autorka koncentruje się na krytycznej analizie przyjętej przez wspomnianych autorów koncepcji autonomii, która prowadzi ją do wniosku, że tak rozumiana autonomia (1) nie może zostać uznana za nadrzędną wartość etyki medycznej oraz (2) wyklucza podejmowane przez jej zwolenników próby ugruntowania prawa do niewiedzy w innych wartościach. W końcowych partiach tekstu autorka stara się uzasadnić tezę, iż odpowiednio sformułowana koncepcja autonomii pozwala stwierdzić, że pacjent, jako podmiot autonomiczny, pośród innych praw ma także prawo do niewiedzy o własnym stanie zdrowia.
EN
The article explores the problem of whether a person as an autonomous individual has the right not to know about the state of their health. The point of reference is the classic article by John Harris and Kirsty Keywood, “Ignorance, Information and Autonomy”, in which they claim that the alleged right to ignorance is incompatible with autonomy. The author undertakes a critical analysis of the concept of autonomy adopted by these authors, which leads them to conclude (1) that such autonomy cannot be regarded as the supreme value of medical ethics, and (2) that it excludes attempts undertaken by its proponents to ground the right to ignorance in other values. The author argues that a properly formulated the concept of autonomy allows one to conclude that the patient, as an autonomous individual has the right not to know about their health.
The concept of personal identity has recently come to play an increasingly important role in bioethical discussion concerning the beginning and end of human life. This study does not aim to represent the whole range of applications of theories of personal identity to bioethics. It focuses only on the beginning of human life, namely on the question of the moral acceptability of abortion. The author begins by describing an argument rejecting the acceptability of abortions which has been advanced by P. Lee, and it is shown that the validity of this argument depends on a certain conception of personal identity. Then the author briefly defines the psychological approach to personal identity, and he points to its weaknesses. There follows a discussion of the theory of animalism which claims that our persistence in time does not comprise any psychological factors. The conclusion of the article deals with various theories of moral status and indicates the inadequacy of functional criteria in accounting for the moral point of view. The article finishes by stating that the moral status of human beings should be founded on the concept of human dignity. If the considerations in the study have been set out correctly then they justify the following conclusion: abortions are morally unacceptable.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.