Skip to main content

Ethical Issues Concerning Patient Autonomy in Clinical Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theories of the Self and Autonomy in Medical Ethics

Part of the book series: The International Library of Bioethics ((ILB,volume 83))

Abstract

The paper takes up the perspective of clinical practice and discusses the importance of respect for patients’ autonomy from this angle. Until a few decades ago, physicians and nurses involved in ethical decision-making primarily considered the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Respect for the patient’s autonomy clearly played a subordinate role. In traditional ethical codes such as the Hippocratic Oath or the Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association of 1948, no reference is made to the patient’s wishes. This has changed radically: In line with the shift in values towards greater individuality and personal responsibility observed in the Western world in the second half of the twentieth century, patient self-determination became more and more important. Legal decisions and modern medical ethics emphasize that patient autonomy overrides what physicians and nurses consider best for the well-being of the patient. Informed consent is now a widely acknowledged normative standard in medical ethics, and patient autonomy finds its concrete expression in clinical practice in this concept of informed consent. The paper introduces the concept and discusses central issues concerning patient autonomy in clinical practice: What can health care professionals do to encourage patient autonomy? What are possible limits to patient autonomy? How can a patient’s capacity to consent be assessed? How should health care professionals deal with patients who have temporarily or completely lost their capacity to consent? What is the importance of advance directives? What are possible problems concerning advance directives in clinical practice, and how can they be solved?

This chapter is a development of Simon and Nauck (2013).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Respect for patient autonomy was only introduced in the fourth revised version of the Geneva Declaration in 2017.

  2. 2.

    Beauchamp and Childress (2013) list four ethical principles in their standard work The Principles of Biomedical Ethics: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This article focuses on the relationship between the first three principles, whereat the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence are summarised under the principle of care.

  3. 3.

    The following comments on informed consent apply not only to physicians, but also to representatives of other health care professions.

  4. 4.

    Summarises the “informative model” and the “interpretative model” from Emanuel and Emanuel (1992).

References

  • Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2013. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress, James F. 1982. Who Should Decide? Paternalism in Health Care. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, John M. 2009. Patient Perceptions on the Use of Advance Directives and Life-Prolonging Technology. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine 26 (4): 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909109331886.

  • Dworkin, Gerald. 1970. Acting Freely. Noûs 4 (4): 367–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Gerald. 1972. Paternalism. The Monist 56 (1): 64–84. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197256119.

  • Emanuel, Ezekiel J., and Linda L. Emanuel. 1992. Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. Journal of the American Medical Association 267 (16): 2221–2226. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03480160079038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faden, Ruth R., and Tom L. Beauchamp. 1986. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Joel. 1971. Legal Paternalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1 (1): 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1971.10716012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Harm to Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, Harry G. 1971. Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1): 5–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2024717.

  • Grisso, Thomas, and Paul S. Appelbaum. 1998. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment. A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • In der Schmitten, Jürgen, Friedemann Nauck, and Georg Marckmann. 2016. Advance Care Planning: A New Concept to Realise Effective Advance Directives. Palliativmedizin 17: 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-110711.

  • Jox, Ralf J., Jürgen in der Schmitten, and Georg Marckmann. 2015. Ethische Grenzen und Defizite der Patientenverfügung. In Advance Care Planning. Von der Patientenverfügung zur gesundheitlichen Vorausplanung, ed. Michael Coors, Jürgen in der Schmitten, and Ralf J. Jox, 23–38. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Jay. 1984. The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutner, Luis. 1969. Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Aill, A Proposal. Indiana Law Journal 44 (4): 539–554. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol44/iss4/2.

  • Marckmann, Georg. 2011. Selbstbestimmung bei entscheidungsunfähigen Patienten aus medizinethischer Sicht. In Autonomie und Stellvertretung in der Medizin. Entscheidungsfindung bei nichteinwilligungsfähigen Patienten, ed. Christof Breitsameder, 17–33. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, Diane E, and Larry Beresford. 2009. POLST Offers Next Stage in Honoring Patient Preferences. Journal of Palliative Medicine 12 (4): 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2009.9648.

  • Nauck, Friedmann, and Alt-Epping, Bernd. 2008. Crises in palliative care—a comprehensive approach. The Lancet Oncology 9 (11): 1086–1091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patzig, Günther. 1989. Gibt es eine Gesundheitspflicht? Ethik in der Medizin 1 (1): 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porensky, Emily K., and Brian D. Carpenter. 2008. Knowledge and Perceptions in Advance Care Planning. Journal of Aging and Health 20 (1): 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264307309963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radenbach, Katrin, and Alfred Simon. 2016. Advance Care Planning in der Psychiatrie. Ethik in der Medizin 28 (3): 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-016-0399-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schöne-Seifert, Bettina. 2009. Paternalismus. Zu seiner ethischen Rechtfertigung in Medizin und Psychiatrie. In Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik, ed. Ludger Honnefelder and Dieter Sturma, 107–127. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalowitz, David I., Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, and David Wendler. 2006. The Accuracy of Surrogate Decision Makers. A Systematic Review. Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (5): 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.5.493.

  • Simon, Alfred. 2013. Historical Review on Advance Directives. In Advance Directives: Ethical Issues from an International Perspective, ed. Peter Lack, Nikola Biller-Andorno, and Susanne Brauer, 3–16. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Alfred, and Friedemann Nauck. 2013. Patientenautonomie in der klinischen Praxis. In Patientenautonomie. Theoretische Grundlagen – Praktische Anwendungen, ed. Claudia Wiesemann and Alfred Simon, 167–179. Münster: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollmann, Jochen. 2008. Patientenselbstbestimmung und Selbstbestimmungsfähigkeit. Beiträge zur Klinischen Ethik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicclair, Mark R. 2011. Conscientious Objections in Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. 1948, 72017. Declaration of Geneva. Accessed 10 Dec 2018. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfred Simon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Simon, A. (2020). Ethical Issues Concerning Patient Autonomy in Clinical Practice. In: Kühler, M., Mitrović, V.L. (eds) Theories of the Self and Autonomy in Medical Ethics. The International Library of Bioethics, vol 83. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56703-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics