Abstract

Regarding patients’ valid informed consent to treatment, it is a still contested issue, whether the level of required decisional competency should mirror the riskiness of the treatment at stake. This chapter attempts to refute such a risk-relative conception of competence on the basis of a systematic analysis of relevant arguments, both conceptual and normative ones. A misconception of autonomy’s proper value and attribution as well as the danger of a hidden paternalism are among the main objections against RRCC.