In this paper I argue that reflection on competence and enfranchisement in relation to profound disability forces re-examination of the grounds of citizenship, with implications for theories of distributive justice in education. The primary purpose is less to point up that some people are disenfranchised without injustice; it is more to advance the view that, since enfranchisement is not an option for some profoundly disabled people, we require a conception of citizenship that is more sensitive to their distinctive needs and (...) interests. (shrink)

Un nouveau type de paternalisme s’est développé ces dix dernières années sous l’impulsion de travaux innovateurs de certains économistes comportementaux. Ce nouveau type de paternalisme, que j’appelle ici paternalisme comportemental, s’est popularisé grâce à la théorie du « coup de pouce » de Richard Thaler et Cass Sunstein et remet en question l’idée selon laquelle le paternalisme serait inacceptable dans nos sociétés. L’objet de cet article est d’évaluer sa légitimité morale sans, néanmoins, se limiter à son supposé libertarianisme. Les résultats (...) de mon investigation peuvent se résumer ainsi : bien que le paternalisme comportemental soit généralement reconnu pour son caractère libéral, il ne satisfait pas en fait les conditions de ce que Joel Feinberg nomme le « paternalisme mou ». Néanmoins, il possède des qualités morales sous-estimées par ses partisans. Il résiste d’abord très bien à la critique égalitariste d’Elizabeth Anderson. A la différence des formes traditionnelles de paternalisme, le paternalisme comportemental n’est pas dégradant et n’est pas ostracisant. Le paternalisme comportemental, enfin, peut se targuer d’être véritablement altruiste, à la condition, cependant, d’abandonner les hypothèses principales de Sunstein et Thaler. Classification JEL : A12, D64, I18, I31, K32. (shrink)

Julia Rosenak; Should Children be Subject to Paternalistic Restrictions on their Liberties?, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 16, Issue 1, 30 May 2006.

Julia Rosenak; Should Children be Subject to Paternalistic Restrictions on their Liberties?, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 16, Issue 1, 30 May 2006.

In a recent paper, Schaefer et al. proposed to enhance autonomy via improving reasoning abilities through cognitive enhancement [1]. While initially their idea additionally seems to elegantly avoid objections against genetic enhancements based on the value of autonomy, we want to draw attention to several problems their approach poses. First, we will show that it is not at all clear that safe and meaningful methods to genetically or pharmaceutically enhance cognition will be feasible any time soon. Second, we want to (...) provide a deeper discussion of the role of cognition and reasoning abilities in philosophical concepts of autonomy, as discussed in the mentioned paper. In doing so, we wish to demonstrate that using reasoning abilities as the common denominator in different accounts of autonomy in the context of enhancement does not do justice to the highly complex interrelations between cognition, reasoning abilities and autonomy. Neither should this way of arguing be accepted as a basis to call for practical outcomes, such as funding research into e. g. genetic cognitive enhancements, if the examined concepts of autonomy are taken seriously. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this paper we compare philosophical and contemporary psychological approaches to mental handicap. Careful comparison between the disciplines reveals major differences and indicates that much further work is needed which would be fruitful for both sides. The two disciplines concentrate on different questions: philosophy tends to look chiefly at mental handicap in relation to issues of personhood and is not very clear about what mental handicap is; psychology on the other hand is much more specific about mental handicap, but (...) shows little concern with critically examining value issues. Our main intention is to explore the different ways in which mental handicap is defined and seen as a class. We conclude that class definition embodies a significant normative component and a large element of social construction. To ignore this and attempt to make normative judgements on the basis of class membership is thus highly problematic. Since within philosophy, these normative issues are often discussed in terms of personhood, this category is also critically examined and the conclusion is reached that it too has normative and social components which can lead to ethically dubious judgements being made about ‘the mentally handicapped’. (shrink)

Australia, Canada, and New Zealand currently apply health requirements to prospective immigrants, denying residency to those with health conditions that are likely to impose an “excessive demand” on their publicly funded health and social service programs. In this paper, I investigate the charge that such policies are wrongfully discriminatory against persons with disabilities. I first provide a freedom-based account of the wrongness of discrimination according to which discrimination is wrong when and because it involves disadvantaging people in the exercise of (...) their freedom on the basis of morally arbitrary features of their identity. Discrimination is permissible, I suggest, when it is necessary to advance a valuable exercise of the discriminating agent’s freedom. I then apply this account to the case of social cost health requirements. Against critics of these requirements, I argue that it is sometimes permissible for states to discriminate against prospective immigrants with disabilities. States may do so, I suggest, when such discriminatory treatment is necessary to prevent an increase in rates of mortality and/or morbidity amongst citizens. Alongside critics of social cost health requirements however, I argue that existing policies are likely a form of wrongful discrimination insofar as they are too broad to satisfy this standard. (shrink)

Research with psychiatric patients raises frequently discussed, ethical questions, one of which is: Can psychiatric patients give consent to participation in research at all? To answer this and similar questions adequately, it is - according to our thesis - necessary to analyze first, which theoretical assumptions are made in established practice. -/- To solve the question after the possibility of consent, compatible understandings of ‘disease’, ‘illness’ and ‘autonomy’ are crucial, but there is no consensual use of these terms in philosophy. (...) Therefore we first are going to explain different concepts of ‘autonomy’ and ‘disease’. Subsequent to this we will test how the different conceptualizations of ‘autonomy’ and ‘disease’ can be related to each other and how the reasonable combinations shape possible answers to the opening question. It will become apparent that an adequate analysis of ‘autonomy’ and ‘disease’ raises ethical dilemma in psychiatry, for which we shall suggest possible solutions. (shrink)

Legal restrictions of the right to self-determination increasingly pretend to be compatible with the liberal concept of autonomy: they act upon a ‘soft’ or autonomy-orientated paternalistic rationale. Conventional liberal critique of paternalism turns out to be insensitive to the intricate normative problems following from ‘soft’ or ‘libertarian’ paternalism. In fact, these autonomy-oriented forms of paternalism could actually be even more problematic and may infringe liberty rights even more intensely than hard paternalistic regulation. This paper contributes to the systematic differentiation of (...) soft and hard paternalism by discussing the (legal) concept of autonomy and elaborates the moral and legal limits of autonomy-orientated paternalism. (shrink)

This Introduction to the collection of essays surveys the philosophical literature to date with respect to five central questions: justice, care, agency, metaphilosophical issues regarding the language and representation of cognitive disability, and personhood. These themes are discussed in relation to three specific conditions: intellectual and developmental disabilities, Alzheimer's disease, and autism, though the issues raised are relevant to a broad range of cognitive disabilities. The Introduction offers a brief historical overview of the treatment cognitive disability has received from philosophers, (...) and explains the specific challenges that cognitive disability poses to philosophy. In briefly summarizing the essays in the collection, it highlights the distinctive contributions the collection makes to ethics, political philosophy, bioethics, and the philosophy of disability. We hope that the richness of the topics explored by these essays will be a spur to further investigation. (shrink)

Dr Baumgarten analyses three possible justifications for doctors to decide that a patient is 'incompetent' to make or participate in medical decisions affecting him, and points out the difficulties of each. He argues that the degree to which a patient relinquishes control over decision-making which affects him will vary in different circumstances and should be explicitly agreed in the initial doctor-patient contract, rather as it often is when a client employs a professional to invest money on his behalf.

This paper explores the claim that someone can reasonably consider themselves to be under a duty to respect the autonomy of a person who does not have the capacities normally associated with substantial self-governance.

Justice requires that the significant differences between the way contemporary American law treats children and adults be grounded in some morally relevant difference between them. ;The Supreme Court has generally cited three commonly held beliefs about how children are different from adults: their vulnerability to harm, their lack of mature judgment, and the importance of the parental role in their lives. ;This dissertation argues that, granting the courts those differences, as well as principles of justice considered to be absolute in (...) adult contexts, decision-making in children's rights cases is rife with inconsistencies. ;The decisions are not consistent in cases involving children and adults who are physically incapacitated. They are not consistent in cases involving children and adults who are mentally incapacitated. Finally, on either of the legal system's interpretations of the parental role, many decisions in children's rights cases violate fundamental constitutional principles. ;The basis of the inconsistent decision-making is determined to be the presumption that children as a class are utterly "different," and that, therefore, their rights can be granted or withheld according to an entirely different standard. ;Finally, a solution to the problem of children's rights is located in the legal doctrine of suspect classes. (shrink)

Thaler and Sunstein advocate 'libertarian paternalism'. A libertarian paternalist changes the conditions under which people act so that their cognitive biases lead them to choose what is best for themselves. Although libertarian paternalism manipulates people, Thaler and Sunstein say that it respects their autonomy by preserving the possibility of choice. Conly argues that libertarian paternalism does not go far enough, since there is no compelling reason why we should allow people the opportunity to choose to bring disaster upon themselves if (...) sometimes they will make the wrong decision. She defends 'coercive paternalism'. The present paper argues that errors in reasoning are not due only to cognitive biases. People also make errors because they have an insufficient level of general intelligence. Intelligence is distributed on a continuum. Those who fall on higher levels of the continuum have greater abilities, in certain contexts, to reason about both their own and others' interests. Coercive paternalism may sometimes be appropriate to prevent less intelligent people from engaging in self-destructive behavior due to errors of reasoning. (shrink)