Human Dignity and Bioethics

24 | F. Daniel Davis
the three principles are beliefs “generally accepted in our cultural tradition”:
18 they are derived, that is, from what principlists call “the
common morality.” Such, in outline, is the National Commission’s
understanding of principles, as is evident in its treatment of the first
of the three principles, viz., respect for persons.
The principle of respect for persons embraces two “ethical convictions,”
each of which has a correlative moral requirement. That
is, embedded in each of the two convictions are directions for action
or practice; these directions are moral requirements spelling out
what is required in any action that seeks to be faithful to the conviction.
One of the two convictions is that “individuals should be
treated as autonomous agents,” and its corresponding requirement
is to “acknowledge autonomy.” The other conviction is that “persons
with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection,” 19 and its correlative
requirement is to “protect those with diminished autonomy.”
Thus autonomy, the capacity to deliberate about one’s personal goals
and to act in accord with these deliberations and goals, looms large
among those attributes of persons that merit respect—and respect
is what leads us to “give weight to autonomous persons’ considered
opinions and choices while refraining from obstructing their actions
unless they are clearly detrimental to others.” 20 Recognizing that
some persons have not yet acquired or never will fully acquire the
developmental capacities critical to the exercise of autonomy, the National
Commission asserts that such individuals need protection, to a
degree or kind dependent upon the risks and benefits of participation
in human subjects research. Finally, in concrete application, the principle
of respect for persons makes it imperative to secure informed,
voluntary consent when enrolling participants in human subjects
research. 21
How does the principle of respect for persons, along with the
principles of beneficence and justice, figure in the work of the National
Commission? One way of answering the question is, of course,
to consult the Commission’s published reports with an eye on the
ethical reasoning that undergirds particular findings and recommendations.
Although there are differences from report to report, their
logic is consistent: they lay out the questions and issues engendered by
the focal topic, summarize and describe current practices and thinking
about the topic, and then proceed with ethical analysis. Other