chenphilosophy.com
Bioethicist at The Ohio State University. Certified healthcare ethics consultant. Creator of The Philosophy Podcast Hub. Host of The Ethical Frontier podcast. https://linktr.ee/chenphilosophy
303 posts
1,066 followers
2,022 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Btw, I’m happy you cited Jeff’s work! He’s at SLU, which is where I did my PhD.
comment in response to
post
I totally agree that the property analogy isn't perfect.
comment in response to
post
I agree that people should be able to refuse LST, and I agree that people value other things, but then it still comes down to the same question: Why is it about their values and not my values?
comment in response to
post
Generally, the collaborative approach is recommended, but if the patient has decision-making capacity, the bioethical standard is that they can refuse life-saving care. It amounts to a negative right of noninterference.
comment in response to
post
I think there's a link between agency and responsibility as well. But then there's still the question of why I'm not responsible for making end-of-life decisions for you, when you can make them for yourself.
comment in response to
post
Like why isn't it about my agency if we're talking about refusing care for you? The answer is because it's not my life.
comment in response to
post
There's a lot of research out there that suggests that we don't make rational decisions even based on our prefs. (I'm thinking of the research that supports nudges.)
And I agree with the validation of agency, but that also seems to assume that it's your life.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, that's a good point.
I think the concept of ownership has limits when it comes to your life or body, just metaphysically speaking. But it seems like the closest concept that's doing the normative work.
What else would give you the authority to refuse life-saving care?
comment in response to
post
I agree.
I think that also suggests that your life is yours. It doesn’t make sense for someone else to make those decisions for you when you could make them for yourself.
comment in response to
post
I get that, but then that assumes a third option. The situations I'm thinking about are characterized by only two. And I think when people are faced with such situations in real life, they assume there are only two options.
comment in response to
post
I haven't. But I know from private conversations that there are people who see a distinction between the two.
I don't see the difference, however.
comment in response to
post
Is this on Apple Podcasts already? If so, I’ll add it to the philosophy podcast hub.
comment in response to
post
I haven’t listened to it yet, so I can’t say.
comment in response to
post
Just added it to The Philosophy Podcast Hub!
comment in response to
post
I don’t! I’ll check it out.
comment in response to
post
I'm so sorry to hear this. Hugs.
comment in response to
post
This is one of the first exercises I have my students do.
comment in response to
post
Sending you positive thoughts.
comment in response to
post
I’d support option 2. Assisted death should be available for those making an autonomous choice. I think it’s comparable to the right to refuse life-saving care.
comment in response to
post
Are you referring to their writing style or the content of their arguments?
I agree that the writing style is boring.
If you're looking for more interesting arguments, read some anti-natalist and libertarian stuff.
comment in response to
post
I actually interviewed him about police dishonesty.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8-s...