Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Autonomy, justice, and disability.

C A Ball1

  • 1University of Illinois College of Law, USA.

UCLA Law Review. University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law
|November 9, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Genome-wide analysis in 756,646 individuals provides first genetic evidence that <i>ACE2</i> expression influences COVID-19 risk and yields genetic risk scores predictive of severe disease.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2021
Same author

Method of Preparing Sterilised Catgut.

British medical journal·2010
Same author

THE DIAGNOSIS OF IMPACTED CALCULUS IN THE URETER.

British medical journal·2010
Same author

Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data.

Nature genetics·2001
Same author

Genome comparisons highlight similarity and diversity within the eukaryotic kingdoms.

Current opinion in chemical biology·2001
Same author

Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium.

Nature genetics·2000
Same journal

Why we need the independent sector: the behavior, law, and ethics of not-for-profit hospitals.

UCLA law review. University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law·2005
Same journal

Lochner redeemed: family privacy after Troxel and Carhart.

UCLA law review. University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law·2005
Same journal

Dealing with cryopreserved embryos upon divorce: a contractual approach aimed at preserving party expectations.

UCLA law review. University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law·2004
Same journal

Conceiving harm: disability discrimination in assisted reproductive technologies.

UCLA law review. University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law·2004
Same journal

Reconceiving privacy: relationships and reproductive technology.

UCLA law review. University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law·2001
Same journal

The illusion of autonomy at the end of life: unconsented life support and the wrongful life analogy.

UCLA law review. University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law·2001
See all related articles

This article argues that societal obligations to individuals with disabilities stem from the moral imperative to ensure autonomy. Meeting basic needs is insufficient; true support requires enabling functional capabilities for autonomous lives.

Area of Science:

  • Philosophy of Law
  • Disability Studies
  • Political Theory

Background:

  • Current societal rights and benefits for individuals with disabilities are explored.
  • The philosophical underpinnings of disability support are examined.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To establish the moral obligation of society to assist individuals with disabilities based on the concept of autonomy.
  • To respond to libertarian critiques regarding government intervention for disability support.
  • To challenge the sufficiency of 'needs-based' justifications for disability rights.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical analysis of autonomy and its relation to functional capabilities.
  • Critique of libertarian arguments concerning government's role in disability.
  • Examination of the concept of 'needs' versus 'autonomy' in disability ethics.
Keywords:
Health Care and Public HealthPhilosophical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Autonomy requires society to ensure a minimum threshold of functional capabilities for individuals with disabilities.
  • Even libertarian frameworks involve wealth redistribution for certain incapacities.
  • Addressing only 'needs' inadequately justifies disability rights, as it overlooks the value of personal autonomy.

Conclusions:

  • The moral justification for disability rights and benefits must be grounded in the principle of autonomy, not merely needs.
  • Societal obligations extend beyond basic provisions to actively enabling autonomous living for disabled individuals.
  • Philosophical frameworks can inform more robust and ethically sound disability policy.