Question Can someone's quality of life ever be so bad that you are justified in taking care of them against their will in order to improve it? If so, how bad does it have to be?

Accepted:
November 3, 2005

Comments

It all depends on the mental competence of the other person. If he's not very competent (a child, perhaps, or mentally disabled), then we may interfere with him even to prevent minor harms. One should never interfere with the freedom of fully competent adults in order to improve their quality of life. Still, when a person's quality of life becomes very low, her mental competence may come into question. It is very hard to think rationally when one is in severe pain, for example. And in such cases it may be justified, then, to take care of someone against her own will. Here we still face the question of WHO is so justified. A good candidate is a family member who intimately knows the person and what she would wish if she were feeling better. A poor candidate is some stranger, driven perhaps by moral or religious values that the person does not share.

So, when a normally competent adult is in such bad shape that his capacity for decision-making is impaired, then others who know him well may interfere with his freedom in order to improve his quality of life in ways that (they sincerely believe) he would approve of were he fully competent.

Question Can someone's quality of life ever be so bad that you are justified in taking care of them against their will in order to improve it? If so, how bad does it have to be? Accepted:November 3, 2005

Question Can someone's quality of life ever be so bad that you are justified in taking care of them against their will in order to improve it? If so, how bad does it have to be?

Accepted:
November 3, 2005