Skip to main content

Autonomy and Individual Responsibility

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Global Bioethics

Abstract

The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is an extraordinarily ambitious document. It seeks to “provide a universal framework of principles and procedures to guide States in the formulation of their legislation, policies or other instruments in the field of bioethics” (Universal Declaration, Art. 2(a), 2005). Few, if any, intergovernmental instruments match its breadth in terms of subject matter covered (“ethical issues related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as applied to human beings, taking into account their social, legal and environmental dimensions”) (Universal Declaration, Art. 1, 2005). It is also notable for the unusually vast audience to whom it is addressed. Not only is it meant to offer advice to member states but also “to guide the actions of individuals, groups, communities, institutions and corporations, public and private” (Universal Declaration, Art. 2(b), 2005). The Declaration has received some attention from scholars and policy makers, both positive and negative. UNESCO itself has taken steps to circulate and promote it, including by publishing commentaries on its various provisions, authored by invited contributors, including the International Bioethics Committee itself. But one aspect of the Declaration has not yet received the attention it deserves, namely, its treatment of autonomy as an ethical principle. Whereas autonomy has been accorded pride of place as the dominant ethical principle in mainstream bioethics for decades, the Declaration offers a strikingly different approach. That is, it subordinates autonomy to other goods such as human dignity, solidarity, and protection of the vulnerable. In this way, the Declaration recovers and restores the original key animating good for public bioethics that gave rise to this new species of law and policy in the first instance. It marks an important return to the foundational principle of respect for persons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1983). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosk, C. L. (1992). All god’s mistakes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1977). The limits of law in regulating health care decisions. The Hastings Center Report, 7(6), 29–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (2008). Human dignity and respect for persons, Chap. 2. President’s Council on bioethics, human dignity and bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. R. (2003). The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysaught, M. T. (2004). Respect: Or, how respect for persons became respect for autonomy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29(6), 665–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, R. (2003). Dignity is a useless concept. British Medical Journal, 329(7429), 1419–1420. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meilaender, G. (1998). Body, soul and bioethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1999). Ethical issues in human stem cell research. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/human/overvol1.html

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetics and human behaviour. London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Genetics%20and%20human%20behaviour.pdf

  • Pinker, S. (2008, May 28). The stupidity of dignity. The New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/the-stupidity-dignity

  • Pub. Law No. 93–348, 88 Stat 342

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C. E. (1994). Bioethics in the language of the law. Hastings Center Report, 24(4), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C. E. (1994b). Bioethics with a human face. Indiana Law Journal, 69(4), 1075–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snead, O. C. (2010). Science, public bioethics, and the problem of integration. University of California Davis Law Review, 42(5), 1529–1604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. (2005). Articles 2(a), 2(b), 2(c).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Carter Snead .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Snead, O.C., Mulder-Westrate, K. (2014). Autonomy and Individual Responsibility. In: ten Have, H., Gordijn, B. (eds) Handbook of Global Bioethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_68

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_68

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2511-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2512-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics