Autonomy, Beneficence, and the Permanently Demented

Ronald Dworkin and His Critics, 195-217, edited by Justine Burley, Blackwell Publishers, 2004

UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 15-40

29 Pages Posted: 29 Oct 2015

See all articles by Seana Shiffrin

Seana Shiffrin

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

Date Written: 2004

Abstract

Ronald Dworkin contends that advance directives, written when fully competent, concerning how one should be treated if one becomes permanently demented ought to be honored -- even if once demented, one protests against them. His arguments rest on views concerning autonomy and duties of beneficence. I argue Dworkin's conception of autonomy is overly narrow. Another conception of autonomy as self-control is developed that provides reason to give some weight to what one's demented self chooses. Further, I argue his claims about duties of beneficence are at odds with his claims about how to treat beliefs about the sanctity of life.

Suggested Citation

Shiffrin, Seana, Autonomy, Beneficence, and the Permanently Demented (2004). Ronald Dworkin and His Critics, 195-217, edited by Justine Burley, Blackwell Publishers, 2004, UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 15-40, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2681781

Seana Shiffrin (Contact Author)

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )

385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
254
Abstract Views
1,148
Rank
220,690
PlumX Metrics