Autonomy, pluralism and the refusal of blood transfusion by Jehovah’s Witnesses: a philosophical discussion

Abstract

This paper presents a philosophical discussion about the relationship between the principle of autonomy and pluralism when considering decision making about others’ lives. This study considers decisions that are based on personal moral values using the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example. Judicial decisions proffered by Brazilian judges who authorize hospitals to conduct medical procedures against these patients’ will, even when they are able to make autonomous choices are analyzed. The discussion ponders these uncalled for sentences with the intention of showing that beyond the requirement that a conscious and free decision should be made, a moral evaluation of the decision’s content is also made. It concludes that according to the principal of autonomy, the presumption of the existence of a plurality of values leads to different conceptions of good, some of which are widely accepted and others repudiated.