There is a common view in medical ethics that the patient's right to be informed entails, as well, a correlative right not to be informed, i.e., to waive one's right to information. This paper argues, from a consideration of the concept of autonomy as the foundation for rights, that there can be no such ‘right’ to refuse relevant information, and that the claims for such a right are inconsistent with both deontological and utilitarian ethics. Further, the right to be informed (...) is shown to be a mandatory right (though not a welfare right); persons are thus seen to have both a right and a duty to be informed. Finally, the consequences of this view are addressed: since the way in which we conceptualize our problems tends to determine the actions we take to resolve them, it is important properly to conceptualize patients' requests not to be informed. There may be many reasons for acting in accord with such a request, but it is a mistake to conceptualize one's act as ‘respecting a right possessed by persons’. Keywords: medical ethics, informed consent, autonomy, information-waivers, rights, obligations CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Although neglected in the annals of political theory, the struggle between decentralized government and monarchy in the Hebrew scriptures parallels the tensions inherent in classic works of Western political theory from Plato to the American founders. The biblical authors provided lessons beyond the religious sphere, addressing the shared duties of religion and state in developing human virtue, the proper relationships between God, government and the people, and the best forms of government to achieve these objectives. This essay analyses the debate (...) over kingship in ancient Israel as presented in the biblical narratives, demonstrating that the Israelites’ story is important not only as a religious text, but as political theory, and that the questions asked in these texts have retained their relevance. (shrink)

First published in 2002. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Stanovich & West distinguish between evolutionary rationality and normative rationality, and System 1 and System 2 mental processes. They hold that the main function of System 2 has to do with normative and not evolutionary rationality. We ask how System 2 could then be an adaptation, especially given S&W's own work on individual differences.