The relative importance of undesirable truths

Abstract

The right not to know is often defended on the basis of the principle of respect for personal autonomy. If I choose not to acquire personal information that impacts on my future prospects, such a choice should be respected, because I should be able to decide whether to access information about myself and how to use it. But, according to the incoherence objection to the right not to know in the context of genetic testing, the choice not to acquire genetic information undermines the capacity for autonomous decision making. The claim is that it is incoherent to defend a choice that is inimical to autonomy by appealing to autonomy. In this paper, I suggest that the choice not to know in the context of genetic testing does not undermine self-authorship, which is a key aspect of autonomous decision making. In the light of this, the incoherence objection to the right not to know seems less compelling.

Homo Ignorans

“…Some researchers have suggested that individuals have a right not to know in the context of genetic predictive testing, and various international conventions have recognized this right (Wehling, 2015). Others have argued that ignorance undermines self-governance (see Harris & Keywood, 2001, and discussions in Bortolotti, 2012).…”

A Moral Problem for Difficult Art

“…It is common to maintain that my doctor wrongs me here (Andorno , Bortolotti , Bortolotti and Widdows , Husted , Wilson ). Indeed, this view is codified in several international agreements on human rights .…”

Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies

“…However, at one point in their paper (when they try to explain why suicide is consistent with their idea of autonomy) Harris and Keywood (2001: 420) themselves admit that "Autonomy is not simply the exercise of choice but of control -literally self-government". More precisely one could say, following Bortolotti (2013), that autonomy is about "self-authorship" of one's life (within the social relations one lives in as well as within the given external restrictions of self-authorship) rather than about an obligation to be perfectly informed. Seen from this perpective, a person who feels compelled to acquire ever more knowledge and to continously make informed choices can swiftly lose control of her life and thus appears to be far less autonomous than another person who follows her own life plans and decides on her own how much and which genetic information she wants to have.…”