Show simple item record

dc.creatorSavulescu, Julianen
dc.creatorMomeyer, Richard W.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T19:02:23Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T19:02:23Zen
dc.date.created1997-10en
dc.date.issued1997-10en
dc.identifier10.1136/jme.23.5.282en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJournal of Medical Ethics. 1997 Oct; 23(5): 282-288.en
dc.identifier.issn0306-6800en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Should+Informed+Consent+Be+Based+on+Rational+Beliefs?&title=Journal+of+Medical+Ethics.++&volume=23&issue=5&pages=282-288&date=1997&au=Savulescu,+Julianen
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.23.5.282en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/753500en
dc.description.abstractOur aim is to expand the regulative ideal governing consent. We argue that consent should not only be informed but also based on rational beliefs. We argue that holding true beliefs promotes autonomy. Information is important insofar as it helps a person to hold the relevant true beliefs. But in order to hold the relevant true beliefs, competent people must also think rationally. Insofar as information is important, rational deliberation is important. Just as physicians should aim to provide relevant information regarding the medical procedures prior to patients consenting to have those procedures, they should also assist patients to think more rationally. We distinguish between rational choice/action and rational belief. While autonomous choice need not necessarily be rational, it should be based on rational belief. The implication for the doctrine of informed consent and the practice of medicine is that, if physicians are to respect patient autonomy and help patients to choose and act more rationally, not only must they provide information, but they should care more about the theoretical rationality of their patients. They should not abandon their patients to irrationality. They should help their patients to deliberate more effectively and to care more about thinking rationally. We illustrate these arguments in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing life-saving blood transfusions. Insofar as Jehovah's Witnesses should be informed of the consequences of their actions, they should also deliberate rationally about these consequences.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:MEDKIE/98023184en
dc.subjectAutonomyen
dc.subjectBlooden
dc.subjectBlood Transfusionsen
dc.subjectCommunicationen
dc.subjectCompetenceen
dc.subjectConsenten
dc.subjectDisclosureen
dc.subjectEducationen
dc.subjectInformed Consenten
dc.subjectJehovah's Witnessesen
dc.subjectLifeen
dc.subjectMedicineen
dc.subjectPatientsen
dc.subjectPhysician Patient Relationshipen
dc.subjectPhysiciansen
dc.subjectReligionen
dc.subjectTreatment Refusalen
dc.titleShould Informed Consent Be Based on Rational Beliefs?en
dc.provenanceDigital citation created by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University for the BIOETHICSLINE database, part of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics' Bioethics Information Retrieval Project funded by the United States National Library of Medicine.en
dc.provenanceDigital citation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named NBIO hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection BioethicsLine hosted by Georgetown University.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2018 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885