Autonomy and end of life decisions: a paradox

Colburn, B. (2013) Autonomy and end of life decisions: a paradox. In: Räikkä, J. and Varelius, J. (eds.) Adaptation and Autonomy: Adaptive Preferences in Enhancing and Ending Life. Series: Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics (10). Springer: Berlin, Germany, pp. 69-80. ISBN 9783642383755 (doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38376-2_5)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.

Publisher's URL:


Suppose that we think it important that people have the chance to enjoy autonomous lives. An obvious corollary of this thought is that people should, if they want it, have control over the time and manner of their deaths, either ending their own lives, or by securing the help of others in doing so. So, generally, and even if we overall think that the practice should not be legalized on other grounds, it looks like common sense to think that considerations of autonomy tell at least somewhat in favour of legalizing at least some acts of suicide and voluntary euthanasia. In this paper, I argue that, in fact, when we scrutinize the reasons for most end of life decisions, it turns out that they are seriously problematic from the point of view of autonomy. Full autonomy requires that we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions, and responsibility is precluded by non-voluntariness, which is to say decisions made because there are no acceptable alternatives. Since most end of life decisions are made for precisely this reason, it looks as though most such decisions are non-voluntary, and therefore undermine our autonomy: a discomforting and paradoxical claim. I argue that we should respond by taking the paradox to illuminate the context required by an autonomy-respecting framework for legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia. People should have a legal right to a reasonable choice about when and how to die. However, this must go hand in hand with institutions that ensure, as far as possible, that such choices are made against a background which ensures, as far as possible, that people choose death clear-sightedly and not because nothing else is acceptable.

Item Type:Book Sections
Keywords:Autonomy, euthanasia, suicide, medical ethics, bioethics, applied ethics
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Colburn, Professor Ben
Authors: Colburn, B.
Subjects:B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BJ Ethics
J Political Science > JC Political theory
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
College/School:College of Arts & Humanities > School of Humanities > Philosophy

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record