Paternalism, Consent, and the Use of Experimental Drugs in the Military
Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
James Martin 21st Century School, Oxford University, and the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, New South Wales, Australia
Address correspondence to: Jessica Wolfendale, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia E-mail: jwo{at}unimelb.edu.au
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Modern military organizations are paternalistic organizations. They typically recognize a duty of care toward military personnel and are willing to ignore or violate the consent of military personnel in order to uphold that duty of care. In this paper, we consider the case for paternalism in the military and distinguish it from the case for paternalism in medicine. We argue that one can consistently reject paternalism in medicine but uphold paternalism in the military. We consider two well-known arguments for the conclusion that military organizations should not be entitled to use experimental drugs on troops without first obtaining the informed consent of those troops. We argue that both of these are unsuccessful, in the absence of an argument for the rejection of paternalism in the military altogether. The case for military paternalism is widely accepted. However, we consider three ways in which it could be challenged.
Keywords: duty of care, experimental drugs, informed consent, military personnel, paternalism
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. A. Phillips Introduction J Med Philos, August 1, 2008; 33(4): 295 - 301. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|