Your bioethics prof is off about involuntary psych holds being an extreme example of paternalism. I took bioethics last semester and both the prof and textbook said involuntary commitments are a form of weak paternalism and most people believe it con
Con. is ok. Act and rule utilitarians are generally in favor of weak paternalism and things like involuntary holds. Maybe your professor is more of a Kantian? (Since Kant is opposed to all impediments to patient autonomy.)
I think she meant it was extreme in terms of upsetting rather than extreme paternalism? The other examples people were using were like, uh, seatbelt laws (though there was some discussion of whether seatbelt laws are strong or extreme paternalism).
Because yeah, our book talks about it as weak paternalism, too.
I think she might be more Kantian, though: we’re not covering Kant until next month, but we started with autonomy and she curtailed the discussion when I brought up deontological morality last week because we’re apparently talking about it extensively later.
Do you mind if I ask what book you were using? We’re using Biomedical Ethics by by DeGrazia and Mappes.
