These rights confer adult status on patients whom paternalists regard as children, replacing quasi-familial with quasi-legal relations. A patient’s “free and informed consent” reflects an implicit therapeutic contract, defined and reviewed as treatment proceeds. A physician who treats without such consent is not a patriarch, but a batterer. Less litigiously, these rights define a “principle of autonomy” traced to Kantian notions of respect for persons and inherent human dignity.
... Does the principle (contra Kant) cover voluntary euthanasia?
Solely from the quote above, how do you determine/deduce which Kantian notion conflicts with voluntary euthanasia? I don't understand the particular meaning of trace: is it ODO's Definition 1.1?
to trace = Find or describe the origin or development of
Does trace mean that principle of autonomy refutes voluntary euthanasia? Or does only 'respect ... and human dignity' refute euthanasia? Or both?
Please explain the steps, thought processes; I’d like to try to resolve this myself in the future?