Informed Consent: Autonomy and Self-Ownership

Using the example of an unconsented mouth swab I criticise the view that an action of this kind taken in itself is wrongful in respect of its being a violation of autonomy. This is so much inasmuch as autonomy merits respect only with regard to ‘critical life choices’. I consider the view that such an action is nevertheless harmful or risks serious harm. I also respond to two possible suggestions: that the action is of a kind that violates autonomy; and, that the class of such actions violates autonomy. I suggest that the action is wrongful in as much as it is a bodily trespass. I consider, and criticise, two ways of understanding how morally I stand to my own body: as owner and as sovereign. In respect of the latter I consider Arthur Ripstein’s recent defence of a sovereignty principle. Finally I criticise an attempt by Joel Feinberg to explain bodily trespass in terms of personal autonomy.

Respecting autonomy without disclosing information

There is widespread agreement that it would be both morally and legally wrong to treat a competent patient, or to carry out research with a competent participant, without the voluntary consent of that patient or research participant. Furthermore, in medical ethics it is generally taken that that consent must be informed. The most widely given reason for this has been that informed consent is needed to respect the patient’s or research participant’s autonomy. In this article I set out to challenge this claim by considering in detail each of the three most prominent ways in which ‘autonomy’ has been conceptualized in the medical ethics literature. I will argue that whilst these accounts support the claim that consent is needed if the treatment of competent patients, or research on competent individuals, is to respect their autonomy, they do not support the claim that informed consent is needed for this purpose.

A Review on Improving the Autonomy of Unmanned Surface Vehicles through Intelligent Collision Avoidance Manoeuvres

In recent years unmanned vehicles have grown in popularity, with an ever increasing number of applications in industry, the military and research within air, ground and marine domains. In particular, the challenges posed by unmanned marine vehicles in order to increase the level of autonomy include automatic obstacle avoidance and conformance with the Rules of the Road when navigating in the presence of other maritime traffic. The USV Master Plan which has been established for the US Navy outlines a list of objectives for improving autonomy in order to increase mission diversity and reduce the amount of supervisory intervention. This paper addresses the specific development needs based on notable research carried out to date, primarily with regard to navigation, guidance, control and motion planning. The integration of the International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea within the obstacle avoidance protocols seeks to prevent maritime accidents attributed to human error. The addition of these critical safety measures may be key to a future growth in demand for USVs, as they serve to pave the way for establishing legal policies for unmanned vessels.

Autonomy and Control of State Agencies:Comparing States and Agencies

Do public organizations with similar tasks or structures differ across states with respect to their autonomy and control? If so, why? By comparing the autonomy, control and internal management of state agencies, this book shows how New Public Management doctrines actually work in three small European states with different politico-administrative regimes. Using a unique set of similar survey data on 226 state agencies in Norway, Ireland and Flanders, this study explains differences in agency autonomy, control and management by referring to international isomorphic pressures, state-specific politico-administrative regimes and characteristics of agencies. Therefore, organization theory and neo-institutional schools are used to formulate four competing theoretical perspectives and hypotheses are tested through simple and advanced statistical techniques. By comparing practices between states and between types of agencies, this study substantially enhances scientific knowledge about why public organizations are granted autonomy, why they are controlled in specific ways, and how autonomy affects internal management.

Managing state-owned enterprises in an age of crisis:An analysis of irish experience

As with all aspects of public management, the control, financing, and regulation of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are matters subject to changing international trends and domestic political imperatives. The effects of the global financial crisis (GFC) on the ownership, financing, and role of SOEs are still unfolding, but undoubtedly will be heavily influenced by a new era of public sector reforms principally designed to reassert central political controls, as well as by fiscal pressures to balance state budgets. In this regard, the Irish experience is instructive, with the findings from two datasets being used here to examine various modes of state enterprise control and their corresponding autonomy. Significantly, there has been considerable variety within and across the SOE sector, demonstrating the need for more detailed understanding of how SOEs are managed. © 2011 Taylor & Francis.

Autonomy and regulation of state agencies:Reinforcement, indifference or compensation?

This paper analyses the relationships between the autonomy and regulation of state agencies in Norway, Ireland and Flanders (Belgium). The empirical basis is provided by broad surveys of public sector organizations carried out in 2002-2004. Three hypotheses on these relationships are formulated and examined, indicating different patterns. The reinforcement hypothesis, stating a negative relationship does not get any support. On the other hand, the compensation hypothesis, stating a positive relationship gets some support. In general, however, the indifference hypothesis, stating low or no correlations seems to be the most adequate. The hypotheses are also linked to prevalent administrative doctrines, and the empirical findings indicate how relevant they are. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008.

Dimensions of Financial Autonomy in Low-/Moderate-Income Couples from a Gender Perspective and Implications for Welfare Reform

The ‘unitary household’ lives on in policymakers’ assumptions about couples sharing their finances. Yet financial autonomy is seen as a key issue in gender relations, particularly for women. This article draws on evidence from semi-structured individual interviews with men and women in thirty low-/moderate-income couples in Britain. The interviews explored whether financial autonomy had any meaning to these individuals; and, if so, to what extent this was gendered in the sense of there being differences in men's and women's understanding of it. We develop a framework for the investigation of financial autonomy, involving several dimensions: achieving economic independence, having privacy in one's financial affairs and exercising agency in relation to household and/or personal spending. We argue that financial autonomy is a relevant issue for low-/moderate-income couples, and that women are more conscious of tensions between financial togetherness and autonomy due to their greater responsibility for managing togetherness and lower likelihood of achieving financial independence. Policymakers should therefore not discount the aspirations of women in particular for financial autonomy, even in low-/moderate-income couples where there remain significant obstacles to achieving this. Yet plans for welfare reform that rely on means testing and ignore intra-household dynamics in relation to family finances threaten to exacerbate these obstacles and reinforce a unitary family model.

Food Labels, Autonomy and the Right (Not) to Know

Food labelling has been overlooked in the emerging body of literature concerning the normative dimensions of food and drink policies. In this paper, I argue that arguments normally advanced in bioethics and medical ethics regarding the “right to know” and the “right not to know” can provide useful normative guidelines for critically assessing existing and proposed food labelling regimes. More specifically, I claim that food labelling ought to respect the legitimate interests and the autonomy of both consumers who seek knowledge about their food in order to make informed dietary choices and consumers who prefer to remain ignorant about the contents and effects of their food in order to avoid the emotional and psychological harm, or more simply the loss of enjoyment, which may result from receiving that information.

ECJ Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence between Member States' Prerogatives and Citizens' Autonomy

This chapter provides an analysis of the European Court of Justice's Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence, focused on the potential of Member States to maintain any positive regulatory role in supporting citizens' autonomy on the one hand, and on the impact of the Court's case law on citizens' opportunities to actually enjoy human rights within societies (substantive autonomy). It first sketches the notion of autonomy which is proposed as base of fundamental rights protection and promotion within a social reality characterized by not democratically legitimated dominance based on wealth and economic power. It proceeds to contextualize ECJ case law on fundamental rights. This section starts with a quantitative appetizer, which will formalize some assumptions and test them on a total of 150 cases before the European judiciary. The paper then offers a more conceptual recount around fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination on the one hand and around fundamental rights of workers to actively shape employment and labor relations on the other hand. In conclusion some suggestions are made of how ECJ fundamental rights doctrine could develop more positively in order to moderate diverging interests of different parts of the citizenry in protecting fundamental rights.

Children, Adults, Autonomy and Well-Being

I explore the implications of a view – that children and adults enjoy a markedly different moral and political status, wherein the latter can and should be permitted to make choices as to how they lead their lives, whereas the former should not be permitted to make such choices – for how we think about the relationship between autonomy and welfare, and in particular, in consequence, for how we evaluate paternalism. I discuss the problem of drawing a line and the ‘threshold problem’, and consider how one might, as the UNCRC requires, give a weighted role to the views of the child on matters affecting its own interests.