The principle of autonomy has been supported by all previous governments, including the last Conservative government.
The 1947 constitution establishes the principle of autonomy for local public entities.
Once the principle of autonomy has been conceded as a moral one, it becomes immoral to interfere with it.
The principle of autonomy, for example, might conflict with the principle of beneficence in cases where a competent adult patient refuses to accept life-saving treatment.
Both the utilitarian and the Kantian, it is argued, can support the principle of autonomy, though they would do so for different reasons.
This important principle of autonomy works pretty well for the big issues in medicine, firmly supporting the right of sane and sober people to refuse lifesaving treatment like feeding tubes and respirators.
Thus, although the utilitarian and the Kantian may both accept the principle of autonomy, the principle as it is formulated allows them to understand the notion of autonomy in very different ways.
At the same time, research on public attitudes may reveal that some bioethical principles, such as the principle of autonomy, may not be suitable for some societies, particularly those with cultures that are not particularly individualistic.
On one side, said Alexander M. Capron, the director of the ethics department of the World Health Organization, are "transplant surgeons who believe that a good way to remedy the shortage of organs would be to offer payments," and bioethicists and philosophers who see organ trade as an extension of the principle of autonomy.
Delaying the discussion until the patient is too sick to speak for herself and expecting others to act as surrogate decision makers not only places an unwanted burden on many family members but also violates the core ethical principle of autonomy.
The so-called principle of autonomy provides an interesting case in point.
