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.

Architecture and Construction Management at Queens University Belfast:Regional Cultural Centre

The Regional Cultural Centre in Letterkenny is a new 2000sqm arts center containing theatre, galleries, workshops and ancillary offices. The site is set back from the street, on high ground with good views. The form and envelope of the building was derived from geometrically connecting the site with the town’s two other main public buildings, the Cathedral (1901) and new Civic Offices (2002, also designed by MacGabhann Architects). This geometrical connection or vectors informed the geometry and shape of the building. This urban matrix of geometrically connecting three corner stones of society, namely the ecclesiastical headquarters, the administrative head quarters and the art centre helps to improve the town planning and urban design of the disparate and chaotic development that Letterkenny has become.
The large cantilever, which houses a 300sqm gallery, is aligned towards the Civic Offices, marks the entrance, and signifies a change of direction of the pedestrian route past the building, like a modern day obelisk.
The circulation routes and stairs internally provide views towards the civic offices and cathedral, thus reinforcing the connection between the three buildings and helps visitors make some sense of Letterkenny as an urban center. The main stairs and vertical circulation are contained behind the large glazed foyer, which is framed to be viewed externally like a proscenium stage, with visitors to the building passively acting their routes through the building.