Patient autonomy is an important concept in the clinical context, but the idea in contemporary bioethics discussions is often muddled. By looking closely at the ideas of Rosseau, Kant, and Mill, Autonomy and Patients' Decisions traces the modern concept of autonomy from its historical roots. Charting the changes in notions of autonomy in Beauchamp and Childress's seminal Principles of Biomedical Ethics to provide an overview of how autonomy has been viewed in the field, Merle Spriggs then identifies the four distinct notions of autonomy being referred to in contemporary discussion. The examination of these notions, especially the "descriptive psychological" account, in relation to case studies provides a clear concept of autonomy, compatible with both consequentialist and rights-based theories of ethics. This book provides a clear understanding of patient autonomy and will prove essential reading for health care professionals, bioethicsts, and philosophers.

Surgery inevitably inflicts some harm on the body. At the very least, it damages the tissue that is cut. These harms often are clearly outweighed by the overall benefits to the patient. However, where the benefits do not outweigh the harms or where they do not clearly do so, surgical interventions become morally contested. Cutting to the Core examines a number of such surgeries, including infant male circumcision and cutting the genitals of female children, the separation of conjoined twins, surgical sex assignment of intersex children and the surgical re-assignment of transsexuals, limb and face transplantation, cosmetic surgery, and placebo surgery. When, if ever, do the benefits of these surgeries outweigh their costs? May a surgeon perform dangerous procedures that are not clearly to the patient's benefit, even if the patient consents to them? May a surgeon perform any surgery on a minor patient if there are no clear benefits to that child? These and other related questions are the core themes of this collection of essays.

Surgery inevitably inflicts some harm on the body. At the very least, it damages the tissue that is cut. These harms often are clearly outweighed by the overall benefits to the patient. However, where the benefits do not outweigh the harms or where they do not clearly do so, surgical interventions become morally contested. Cutting to the Core examines a number of such surgeries, including infant male circumcision and cutting the genitals of female children, the separation of conjoined twins, surgical sex assignment of intersex children and the surgical re-assignment of transsexuals, limb and face transplantation, cosmetic surgery, and placebo surgery. When, if ever, do the benefits of these surgeries outweigh their costs? May a surgeon perform dangerous procedures that are not clearly to the patient's benefit, even if the patient consents to them? May a surgeon perform any surgery on a minor patient if there are no clear benefits to that child? These and other related questions are the core themes of this collection of essays.