Mill and the right to remain uninformed

Abstract

In a recent article in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, David Ost (1984) claims that patients do not have a right to waive their right to information. He argues that patients cannot make informed rational decisions without full information and thus, a right to waive information would involve a right to avoid one's responsibility to act as an autonomous moral agent. In support of his position, Ost cites a passage from Mill. Yet, a correct interpretation of the passage in question would support one's right to remain uninformed in certain situations. If the information would hurt one's chances for survival or hurt one's ability to make calm, rational decisions, then one not only does not have a duty to find out the information, but one's exercising one's right to remain uninformed may be the only rational course of action to take.

KIE: Strasser disputes David E. Ost's interpretation of a passage by John Stuart Mill on patient choice in the disclosure of information ("The 'right' not to know," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1984 Aug; 9(3): 301-312). Ost claims that patients cannot make informed rational decisions without full information and that, therefore, the right to waive information also involves the right to waive one's responsibility to act as an autonomous moral agent. Strasser contends that a correct interpretation of Mill supports the right to remain uninformed if the information would be detrimental to survival or to the ability to make rational decisions. In such instances there is no obligation to seek information and the only rational course of action may be to exercise the right to remain uninformed.