Introduction
Mill’s Conception of Liberty
Mill’s conception of liberty states that there exists an area of freedom within which an individual is allowed to develop their individuality without any interference either from law or society (Fred, 1984). Mill aims to ascertain the principle that people can exercise own free choice in living. He affirms that an action or practice is right especially when compared with an alternative approach or action if it results in a possible greatest happiness to that individual. From the conception of the liberty principle, the liberty exercised by an individual should be indefeasible and unconditional, especially when the issue in question appears to be harmless to other people (Fred, 1984). The society may still argue and entreat with the individual who is ready or even obsessed to implement an action as long as it leads to his own happiness. Thus, the society cannot apply any moral condemnation or law to change their behavior.
Bioethics Discussion on Concept of Amputee by Choice
Mill’s concept of liberty of an individual in relation to the freedom from interference by society and legal power has been affirmed by the concept of Amputee by Choice under the law of bioethics (Kuhse & Singer, 2006). Under this concept, bioethicists are concerned on two issues. First, the reason that would motivate an individual to have a part of their body amputated. Secondly, the circumstances under which it is acceptable for medical doctors to agree to these requests. This bioethics concern can be approached under various aspects
• Respect for the Patient Autonomy
• Beneficence
According to the principle of beneficence, the amputation decision is justified. This affirmation is applicable if the benefit of the action to the patient would supersede it harm. Under this principle, the action is acceptable if it fulfills the condition of effectiveness and sustainability, particularly when a less noxious therapy does not exist (Kuhse & Singer, 2006). The argument by the principle is supported by the fact that some patients become so obsessed with having their leg amputated that they do it themselves.
Under the Mill’s context of liberty, the action by an individual can only be restrained only when it becomes harmful to others. The conception applies even where the individual exercise the principle of freedom for his own good and happiness (Fred, 1984). Mill’s approach states a substantial condition for the legal protection of liberty: the patient is free from any interference if only the action and decision does not cause any harm to other people. This argument creates some restrictions to the concept of Amputee by Choice. The amputation process comes with great risks to the patient, besides disability. The high cost incurred during surgery is also a factor. These consequences would cause harm to the family and the society at large.
Conclusion
Basing from the concepts outlined under Amputee by Choice, it can be justified that Mill’s liberty conception is highly plausible. Under the principles of respect for the patient autonomy and beneficence, an individual is allowed to exercise their own free choice in life if it results in a possible greatest happiness. The society cannot apply any moral condemnation or law to change their behavior. However, just like the concepts that restrict the affirmation of Amputee by Choice, Mills conception of liberty restrains the action by an individual when it appears to affect other people.
References
Fred R. B. (1984). Happiness, Justice and Freedom, The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. London: University of California Press.
Kuhse, H., & Singer, P. (Eds.). (2006). Bioethics: An anthology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishin.
