Home »Unlabelled » Medical Humanities Blog

Medical Humanities Blog

On the Social Function of the "Autonomy Zombie" in Western Bioethics

Posted: 01 Feb 2011 12:42 PM PST

Stuart Rennie has a characteristically excellent post on the zombie-like existence of autonomy-centric bioethics. But there's more here than the "cottage industry" of debunking obeisance to autonomy in Western bioethics.

Here's his conclusion:

. . . the horse has been flogged for ages, it is still not dead, and the current zombie-like state of the concept requires an explanation. Why is it, say, that people still find it attractive to say that organ trade between the rich and the poor could be reasonably conceived as a fair and unproblematic trade if conducted between consenting adults? Or that exploitation in international health research is morally acceptable if the 'exploited' party in the transaction adequately consented and might be worse off if he or she did not join a certain study? When a notion seems to be debunked but somehow survives, it is tempting to look past its content and look at the social function it may continue to serve. What does the use of the concept of autonomy 'do' for (some) people when deployed in bioethics arguments? Who gains and who loses when these issues are viewed and defended within frameworks that see individual choice as paramount?

Important questions these, that move well beyond the well-flogged critique to the wider question of why the discourse continues to enjoy such apparent currency in the face of such withering criticisms? Rennie is unquestionably right that a broader functional analysis of the role and utility of the rhetoric might help shed some light on the subject.

Thoughts?