The Right Not to Know: some Steps towards a Compromise.

Area of Science:

• Medical Ethics
• Bioethics
• Patient Autonomy

Background:

• The debate on patients' right not to know life-altering medical diagnoses is ongoing.
• Autonomy is a central ethical concept used by both proponents and opponents of this right.
• Differing conceptions of autonomy, such as 'liberty' versus 'duty,' shape arguments.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically analyze how 'liberty' and 'duty' conceptions of autonomy support or challenge the right not to know.
• To demonstrate that neither autonomy view can exclusively justify extreme positions on the right not to know.
• To explore the potential for a middle ground or compromise in the debate.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of autonomy in ethical discourse.
• Examination of arguments for and against the right not to know based on autonomy.
• Comparative evaluation of 'liberty' and 'duty' perspectives on patient information rights.

Main Results:

• The 'liberty' conception of autonomy does not unqualifiedly support a right not to know.
• The 'duty' conception of autonomy does not provide grounds for an absolute rejection of the right not to know.
• Theoretical distance exists, but the two autonomy views are closer than initially perceived.

Conclusions:

• Neither extreme stance on the right not to know is fully defensible using standard autonomy concepts.
• Reconciling liberty and duty views of autonomy can facilitate a more nuanced approach.
• The findings open possibilities for compromise in ethical discussions regarding patient information rights.