Autonomy Deadlock and Bioethical Principlism.

This article critically examines the role of autonomy within the four-principle framework of bioethics—comprising autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice—as originally articulated by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress. It argues that the prevailing "thin" conception of autonomy, which trea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:American Journal of Bioethics Vol. 26; no. 3; pp. 52 - 57
Autor principal: Harris, Jack
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Ltd Mar2026
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=192252874&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 192252874
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        15265161
        FKZ
      jtl: American Journal of Bioethics
      issn: 15265161
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2026
      vid: 26
      iid: 3
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        192252874
        10.1080/15265161.2026.2623871
        192252874
      ppf: 52
      ppct: 5
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Autonomy Deadlock and Bioethical Principlism.
      aug:
        au: Harris, Jack
        affil: North Carolina State University
      sug:
        subj:
          Autonomy
          Bioethics
          Ethics
          Ethics, Medical
          Decision Making, Clinical
          Patient Rights
      ab: This article critically examines the role of autonomy within the four-principle framework of bioethics—comprising autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice—as originally articulated by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress. It argues that the prevailing "thin" conception of autonomy, which treats it as a defeasible and commensurable principle balanced against the others, leads to deliberative deadlock due to autonomy’s infinite availability, ambiguous normative valence, and lack of a clear metric for weighing its importance. The article suggests that autonomy should be reconceptualized not as a competing principle but as a foundational condition that structures and enables the application of the other principles, thereby avoiding stalemates and enhancing ethical deliberation in biomedical contexts. This reframing calls for a "thicker" account of autonomy that integrates considerations of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice within its scope.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N