Abstract

This is an excellent philosophical study of a frequently neglected ethical problem regarding substitute judgments for incompetent persons. In Part I, the discussion of the legal context in which the problem arises gives the reader an informative and perceptive account of the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of certain fundamental rights in substantive due process cases. The analysis of the line of cases pertaining to the right of privacy and its implication for the problem of the incompetent person presents a good case for the view that "the history of the problem is in fact a legal history." "The problem arises with the Court's articulation of fundamental rights because the question of whether and in what manner the incompetent person possesses these same rights follows immediately from this. Once the courts establish that the incompetent person does possess these rights, they are confronted with the difficulty of determining who shall act on behalf of the incompetent person". The three chapters that comprise Part I are valuable in reminding the reader of the legal aspect of many contemporary moral issues, such as contraception, abortion, etc.; and the importance of the doctrine of judicial strict scrutiny with respect to invidious discriminations.