The relative importance of undesirable truths

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)
119 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The right not to know is often defended on the basis of the principle of respect for personal autonomy. If I choose not to acquire personal information that impacts on my future prospects, such a choice should be respected, because I should be able to decide whether to access information about myself and how to use it. But, according to the incoherence objection to the right not to know in the context of genetic testing, the choice not to acquire genetic information undermines the capacity for autonomous decision making. The claim is that it is incoherent to defend a choice that is inimical to autonomy by appealing to autonomy. In this paper, I suggest that the choice not to know in the context of genetic testing does not undermine self-authorship, which is a key aspect of autonomous decision making. In the light of this, the incoherence objection to the right not to know seems less compelling.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)683-690
JournalMedicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Volume16
Issue number4
Early online date19 Nov 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2013

Keywords

  • Right not to know
  • Genetic testing
  • Personal narratives
  • Autonomy
  • Open future
  • Self-authorship
  • Self-knowledge

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The relative importance of undesirable truths'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this