Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1/2019

01-03-2019 | Scientific Contribution

What deserves our respect? Reexamination of respect for autonomy in the context of the management of chronic conditions

Authors: Aya Enzo, Taketoshi Okita, Atsushi Asai

Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

The global increase in patients with chronic conditions has led to increased interest in ethical issues regarding such conditions. A basic biomedical principle—respect for autonomy—is being reexamined more critically in its clinical implications. New accounts of this basic principle are being proposed. While new accounts of respect for autonomy do underpin the design of many public programs and policies worldwide, addressing both chronic disease management and health promotion, the risk of applying such new accounts to clinical setting remain understudied. However, the application of new accounts of respect for autonomy to clinical settings could support disrespectful attitudes toward or undue interference with patients with chronic conditions. Reconsidering autonomy and respect using Kantian accounts, this paper proposes respect for persons as an alternative basic bioethical principle to respect for autonomy. Unlike the principle of respect for persons in the Belmont Report, our principle involves respecting any patient’s decisions, behaviors, emotions, or life-style regardless of his or her “autonomous” capabilities. Thus, attitudes toward patients should be no different irrespective of the assessment of their decisional or executive capabilities.
Footnotes
1
Some feminist authors concerned with bioethics, such as Mcleod, Sherwin and Dodds, explore the implications of these conceptions for bioethics (Mcleod and Sherwin 2000; Dodds 2000). For example, according to Dodds, respect for autonomy requires not only respect for patient choices of a certain kind, but also the promotion of the development or exercise of those patients’ capacities that constitute autonomy (Dodds 2000, pp. 226–227).
 
2
Our account of Kant’s argument draws largely on O’Neill (1989, 2002) and Kristinsson (2007), Rolf (2012) and Byers (2016).
 
3
Because the argument of the Belmont Report are not for clinical ethics but for research ethics, in which protection for subjects is one of the primary concerns, this separation of patients might be appropriate or necessary. Yet, this paper is not concerned with research ethics, hence, we have not discussed this point further.
 
Literature
go back to reference Aujoulat, Isabelle, William d’Hoore, and Alain Deccache. 2007. Patient empowerment in theory and practice: Polysemy or cacophony? Patient Education and Counselling 6: 13–20.CrossRef Aujoulat, Isabelle, William d’Hoore, and Alain Deccache. 2007. Patient empowerment in theory and practice: Polysemy or cacophony? Patient Education and Counselling 6: 13–20.CrossRef
go back to reference Barclay, Linda. 2000. Autonomy and the social self. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 52–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barclay, Linda. 2000. Autonomy and the social self. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 52–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Beauchamp, Tom L. 2010. The origins and evolution of the Belmont report. In Standing on principles, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp, 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beauchamp, Tom L. 2010. The origins and evolution of the Belmont report. In Standing on principles, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp, 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 1989. Principles of biomedical ethics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 1989. Principles of biomedical ethics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Berlinger, Nancy, Bruce Jennings, and Susan M. Wolf. 2013. The Hastings Center guidelines for decisions on life-sustaining treatment and care near the end of life: Revised and expanded second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Berlinger, Nancy, Bruce Jennings, and Susan M. Wolf. 2013. The Hastings Center guidelines for decisions on life-sustaining treatment and care near the end of life: Revised and expanded second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Byers, Philippa. 2016. Dependence and a Kantian conception of dignity as a value. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 37: 61–69.CrossRef Byers, Philippa. 2016. Dependence and a Kantian conception of dignity as a value. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 37: 61–69.CrossRef
go back to reference Childress, James. 1990. The place of autonomy in bioethics. Hastings Center Report 20: 12–17.CrossRef Childress, James. 1990. The place of autonomy in bioethics. Hastings Center Report 20: 12–17.CrossRef
go back to reference Department of Health. 2001. The expert patient: A new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century. London: Department of Health. Department of Health. 2001. The expert patient: A new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century. London: Department of Health.
go back to reference Dodds, Susan. 2000. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 213–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dodds, Susan. 2000. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 213–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Dove, Edward S., Susan E. Kelly, Federica Lucivero, Mavis Machirori, Sandi Dheensa, and Barbara Prainsack. 2017. Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research? Clinical Ethics 12 (3): 150–165.CrossRef Dove, Edward S., Susan E. Kelly, Federica Lucivero, Mavis Machirori, Sandi Dheensa, and Barbara Prainsack. 2017. Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research? Clinical Ethics 12 (3): 150–165.CrossRef
go back to reference Feste, Catherine and Robert M. Anderson. 1995. Empowerment: From philosophy to practice. Patient Education and Counseling 26: 1–3.CrossRef Feste, Catherine and Robert M. Anderson. 1995. Empowerment: From philosophy to practice. Patient Education and Counseling 26: 1–3.CrossRef
go back to reference Friedman, Marilyn. 2000. Autonomy, social disruption, and women. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 35–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, Marilyn. 2000. Autonomy, social disruption, and women. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 35–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Funnell, Martha M., and Robert M. Anderson. 2004. Empowerment and self-management of diabetes. Clinical Diabetes 22: 123–127.CrossRef Funnell, Martha M., and Robert M. Anderson. 2004. Empowerment and self-management of diabetes. Clinical Diabetes 22: 123–127.CrossRef
go back to reference Gibert, Sophia H., David DeGrazia, and Marion Danis. 2017. Ethics of patient activation: Exploring its relation to personal responsibility, autonomy and health disparities. Journal of Medical Ethics 43: 670–675.CrossRef Gibert, Sophia H., David DeGrazia, and Marion Danis. 2017. Ethics of patient activation: Exploring its relation to personal responsibility, autonomy and health disparities. Journal of Medical Ethics 43: 670–675.CrossRef
go back to reference Herman, Barbara. 1993. Mutual aid and respect for persons. In The practice of moral judgment, ed. Barbara Herman, 45–72. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Herman, Barbara. 1993. Mutual aid and respect for persons. In The practice of moral judgment, ed. Barbara Herman, 45–72. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
go back to reference Jennings, Bruce. 2016. Reconceptualizing autonomy: A relational turn in bioethics. Hastings Center Report 46: 1–5. Jennings, Bruce. 2016. Reconceptualizing autonomy: A relational turn in bioethics. Hastings Center Report 46: 1–5.
go back to reference Jonsen, Albert R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jonsen, Albert R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Kant, Immanuel. 1996/1785a. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, translated as “Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals”. In Immanuel Kant practical philosophy, trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, Immanuel. 1996/1785a. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, translated as “Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals”. In Immanuel Kant practical philosophy, trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Kant, Immanuel. 1996/1797b. Die Metaphysik der Sitten, translated as “The metaphysics as morals.”. In Immanuel Kant practical philosophy, trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, Immanuel. 1996/1797b. Die Metaphysik der Sitten, translated as “The metaphysics as morals.”. In Immanuel Kant practical philosophy, trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Kishi, Keiko, ed. 2015. Serufu-Negurekuto no Hito heno Shien [Support for persons with self-neglect], Chuou-Hoki-Syuppan-Kabushikigaisya (in Japanese). Kishi, Keiko, ed. 2015. Serufu-Negurekuto no Hito heno Shien [Support for persons with self-neglect], Chuou-Hoki-Syuppan-Kabushikigaisya (in Japanese).
go back to reference Kristinsson, Sigurdur. 2007. Autonomy and informed consent: A mistaken association? Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 10: 253–264.CrossRef Kristinsson, Sigurdur. 2007. Autonomy and informed consent: A mistaken association? Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 10: 253–264.CrossRef
go back to reference Kukla, Rebecca. 2005. Conscientious autonomy: Displacing decisions in health care. Hastings Center Report 35 (2): 34–44.CrossRef Kukla, Rebecca. 2005. Conscientious autonomy: Displacing decisions in health care. Hastings Center Report 35 (2): 34–44.CrossRef
go back to reference Lanoix, Monique. 2013. The ethics of imperfect cures: Models of service delivery and patient vulnerability. The Journal of Medical Ethics l39: 690–694.CrossRef Lanoix, Monique. 2013. The ethics of imperfect cures: Models of service delivery and patient vulnerability. The Journal of Medical Ethics l39: 690–694.CrossRef
go back to reference Mcleod, Carolyn, and Susan Sherwin. 2000. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 259–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mcleod, Carolyn, and Susan Sherwin. 2000. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 259–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Naik, Aanand D., Carmel B. Mark, Mark E. Kunik, and Laurence B. McCullough. 2009. Patient autonomy for the management of chronic conditions: A two-component re-conceptualization. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2): 23–30.CrossRef Naik, Aanand D., Carmel B. Mark, Mark E. Kunik, and Laurence B. McCullough. 2009. Patient autonomy for the management of chronic conditions: A two-component re-conceptualization. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2): 23–30.CrossRef
go back to reference O’Neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference O’Neill, Onora. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef O’Neill, Onora. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Pugh, Jonathan. 2014. Enhancing autonomy by reducing impulsivity: The case of ADHD. Neuroethics 7: 373–375.CrossRef Pugh, Jonathan. 2014. Enhancing autonomy by reducing impulsivity: The case of ADHD. Neuroethics 7: 373–375.CrossRef
go back to reference Reach, Gérard. 2014. Patient autonomy in chronic care: Solving a paradox. Patient Preference and Adherence 8: 15–24. Reach, Gérard. 2014. Patient autonomy in chronic care: Solving a paradox. Patient Preference and Adherence 8: 15–24.
go back to reference Ringstad, Øystein. 2016. Being an autonomous person with chronic disease. Croatian Medical Journal 57 (6): 608–610.CrossRef Ringstad, Øystein. 2016. Being an autonomous person with chronic disease. Croatian Medical Journal 57 (6): 608–610.CrossRef
go back to reference Rolf, Sibylle. 2012. Humanity as an object of respect: Immanuel Kant’s anthropological approach and the foundation for morality. The Heythrop Journal 53 (4): 594–605.CrossRef Rolf, Sibylle. 2012. Humanity as an object of respect: Immanuel Kant’s anthropological approach and the foundation for morality. The Heythrop Journal 53 (4): 594–605.CrossRef
go back to reference Saad, Toni C. 2018. The history of autonomy in medicine from antiquity to principlism. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (1): 125–137.CrossRef Saad, Toni C. 2018. The history of autonomy in medicine from antiquity to principlism. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (1): 125–137.CrossRef
go back to reference Sandman, Lars, Bradi B. Granger, Inger Ekman, and Christian Munthe. 2012. Adherence, shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (2): 115–127.CrossRef Sandman, Lars, Bradi B. Granger, Inger Ekman, and Christian Munthe. 2012. Adherence, shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (2): 115–127.CrossRef
go back to reference Secker, Barbara. 1999. The appearance of Kant’s deontology in contemporary Kantianism: Concepts of patient autonomy in bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (1): 43–66.CrossRef Secker, Barbara. 1999. The appearance of Kant’s deontology in contemporary Kantianism: Concepts of patient autonomy in bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (1): 43–66.CrossRef
go back to reference Sherwin, Susan and Meghan Winsby. 2011. A relational perspective on autonomy for older adults residing in nursing homes. Health Expectations 14 (2): 182–190.CrossRef Sherwin, Susan and Meghan Winsby. 2011. A relational perspective on autonomy for older adults residing in nursing homes. Health Expectations 14 (2): 182–190.CrossRef
go back to reference Shimizu, Tetsuro. 2012. Palliative care, In Encyclopedia of applied ethics, 2nd ed., vol. 3, eds. Ruth Chadwick, Dan Callahan, and Peter Singer, 328–337, London: Academic Press.CrossRef Shimizu, Tetsuro. 2012. Palliative care, In Encyclopedia of applied ethics, 2nd ed., vol. 3, eds. Ruth Chadwick, Dan Callahan, and Peter Singer, 328–337, London: Academic Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Shimizu, Tetsuro and Kaoruko Aita. 2013. Shu-matuki kea ni okeru ishi kettei purosesu. In Siri-zu seimei-rinri: Syumatuki iryou [Decision-making process in end-of-life care. In The Japanese Bioethics Series: End-of-Life Care], ed. Awaya Tsuyoshi, 20–41, Tokyo: Maruzen-Shyuppan-Kabushikigaisya (in Japanese). Shimizu, Tetsuro and Kaoruko Aita. 2013. Shu-matuki kea ni okeru ishi kettei purosesu. In Siri-zu seimei-rinri: Syumatuki iryou [Decision-making process in end-of-life care. In The Japanese Bioethics Series: End-of-Life Care], ed. Awaya Tsuyoshi, 20–41, Tokyo: Maruzen-Shyuppan-Kabushikigaisya (in Japanese).
go back to reference Stirrat, G. M., and R. Gill. 2005. Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 127–130.CrossRef Stirrat, G. M., and R. Gill. 2005. Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 127–130.CrossRef
go back to reference Taylor, James S., ed. 2008. Personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, James S., ed. 2008. Personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Veatch, Robert M. 2002. The basics of bioethics. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Veatch, Robert M. 2002. The basics of bioethics. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
go back to reference Veatch, Robert M. 2010. The basics of bioethics. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Veatch, Robert M. 2010. The basics of bioethics. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
go back to reference Wardrope, Alistair. 2015. Relational autonomy and the ethics of health promotion. Public Health Ethics 8 (1): 50–62.CrossRef Wardrope, Alistair. 2015. Relational autonomy and the ethics of health promotion. Public Health Ethics 8 (1): 50–62.CrossRef
go back to reference Wardrope, Alistair. 2016. Reinterpreting respect for relationally and biologically informed autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics 16 (2): 50–52.CrossRef Wardrope, Alistair. 2016. Reinterpreting respect for relationally and biologically informed autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics 16 (2): 50–52.CrossRef
go back to reference Willems, Dick. 2000. Managing one’s body using self-management techniques: Practicing autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (1): 23–38.CrossRef Willems, Dick. 2000. Managing one’s body using self-management techniques: Practicing autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (1): 23–38.CrossRef
go back to reference Williamson, Laura. 2014. Patient and citizen participation in health: The need for improved ethical support. The American Journal of Bioethics 14 (6): 4–16.CrossRef Williamson, Laura. 2014. Patient and citizen participation in health: The need for improved ethical support. The American Journal of Bioethics 14 (6): 4–16.CrossRef
go back to reference Wilson, James. 2007. Is respect for autonomy defensible? Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 353–356.CrossRef Wilson, James. 2007. Is respect for autonomy defensible? Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 353–356.CrossRef
go back to reference Zimmerman, Frederick J. 2017. Public health and autonomy: A critical reappraisal. Hastings Center Report 47 (6): 38–45.CrossRef Zimmerman, Frederick J. 2017. Public health and autonomy: A critical reappraisal. Hastings Center Report 47 (6): 38–45.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
What deserves our respect? Reexamination of respect for autonomy in the context of the management of chronic conditions
Authors
Aya Enzo
Taketoshi Okita
Atsushi Asai
Publication date
01-03-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9844-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1/2019 Go to the issue

Books received

Books received

Short literature notices

Book Reviews