Although Western biomedical ethics emphasizes respect for autonomy, the medical decision-making of Muslim patients interacting with Western healthcare systems is more likely to be motivated by relational ethical and religious commitments that reflect the ideals of equity, reciprocity, and justice. Based on an in-depth cross-cultural comparison of Islamic and Western systems of biomedical ethics and an assessment of conceptual alignments and differences, we argue that, when working with Muslim patients, an ethics of respect extends to facilitating decision-making grounded in the (...) patient’s justice-related customs, beliefs, and obligations. We offer an overview of the philosophical contestations of autonomy-enhancing practices from the Islamic tradition of biomedical ethics, and examples that demonstrate a recommended shift of emphasis from an autonomy-centered to a justice-focused approach to culturally competent agency-promotion. (shrink)

This paper is concerned with the Convention’s “democracy clause,” that is Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which provides for the right to free elections. Why should it be described as a “democracy clause” and what is its significance for today? The paper first sketches out the drafting history, which reveals that while the framers were keen to preserve their inherited domestic institutions, they also thought it crucial to promote democracy. The Convention invokes but does not define democracy. It is (...) within the Court’s competence to elucidate its meaning. The Court holds that pluralist democracy is the only system compatible with the Convention. This paper argues that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 further presupposes a representative legislature. It does not require member states to introduce a specific system of elections and representation, but it obliges them to conform to parliamentary democracy. Thus, the Court’s model of democracy rests on two pillars: pluralism and parliamentarism. It subscribes to pluralist democracy theories but contradicts the monolithic conception endorsed by Carl Schmitt. The Court’s model has the potential to offer a robust account of democracy. Yet, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 has never lived up to its potential. The Court’s relevant jurisprudence is inadequate to address the contemporary antidemocratic shifts that are underway in certain member states. Hence, the paper suggests that the Court’s power to apply this clause is not limited to general elections but also extends to presidential elections and referendums. (shrink)