HEC Forum

pp 1–19

The Need for Authenticity-Based Autonomy in Medical Ethics

Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

The notion of respect for autonomy dominates bioethical discussion, though what qualifies precisely as autonomous action is notoriously elusive. In recent decades, the notion of autonomy in medical contexts has often been defined in opposition to the notion of autonomy favoured by theoretical philosophers. Where many contemporary theoretical accounts of autonomy place emphasis on a condition of “authenticity”, the special relation a desire must have to the self, bioethicists often regard such a focus as irrelevant to the concerns of medical ethics, and too stringent for use in practical contexts. I argue, however, that the very condition of authenticity that forms a focus in theoretical philosophy is also essential to autonomy and competence in medical ethics. After tracing the contours of contemporary authenticity-based theories of autonomy, I consider and respond to objections against the incorporation of a notion of authenticity into accounts of autonomy designed for use in medical contexts. By looking at the typical problems that arise when making judgments concerning autonomy or competence in a medical setting, I reveal the need for a condition of authenticity—as a means of protecting choices, particularly high-stakes choices, from being restricted or overridden on the basis of intersubjective disagreement. I then turn to the treatment of false and contestable beliefs, arguing that it is only through reference to authenticity that we can make important distinctions in this domain. Finally, I consider a potential problem with my proposed approach; its ability to deal with anorexic and depressive desires.

Keywords

Authenticity Autonomy Competence Medical ethics Locke Anorexia Depression 

References

  1. Benson, P. (2005). Feminist intuitions and the normative substance of autonomy. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Personal autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy (pp. 124–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bratman, M. (2007). Planning agency, autonomous agency. In M. Bratman (Ed.), Structures of agency (pp. 195–221). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brock, D. (1991). Decision making competence and risk. Bioethics, 5(2), 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan, A., & Brock, D. (1986). Deciding for others. The Milbank Quarterly, 64(Suppl. 2), 17–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charland, L. (2006). Anorexia and the MacCAT-T test for mental competence: Validity, value and emotion. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 13(4), 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowart, D., & Burt, R. (1998). Confronting death: Who chooses, who controls? The Hastings Center Report, 28(1), 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drane, J. (1984). Competency to give an informed consent. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252(7), 925–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drane, J. (1985). The many faces of competency. The Hastings Center Report, 15(2), 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekstrom, L. (2005). Autonomy and personal integration. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Personal autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy (pp. 143–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eth, S., Eth, C., & Edgar, H. (1981). Can a research subject be too eager to consent? The Hastings Center Report, 11(1), 20–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faden, R., & Beauchamp, T. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gert, B., Culver, C., & Clouser, K. (2006). Bioethics: A systematic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1995). Comparison of standards for assessing patients’ capacities to make treatment decisions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152(7), 1033–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (2006). Appreciating anorexia: Decisional capacity and the role of values. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 13(4), 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hindmarch, T., Hotopf, M., & Owen, G. (2013). Depression and decision-making capacity for treatment or research: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(54), 1–10.Google Scholar
  20. Loewy, E. (1988). Changing one’s mind: When is Odysseus to be believed? Journal of Geriatric Internal Medicine, 3(1), 54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Markson, L., Kern, D., Annas, G., & Glantz, L. (1994). Physician assessment of patient competence. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 42(10), 1074–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nestler, E., Barrot, M., DiLeone, R., Eisch, A., Gold, S., & Monteggia, L. (2002). Neurobiology of depression. Neuron, 34(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Noggle, R. (2005). Autonomy and the paradox of self-creation. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Personal autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy (pp. 143–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rudnik, A. (2002). Depression and competence to refuse psychiatric treatment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(3), 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Savulescu, J. (1994). Rational desires and the limitation of life-sustaining treatment. Bioethics, 8(3), 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skene, L. (1991). Risk-related standard inevitable in assessing competence. Bioethics, 5(2), 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sullivan, M., & Youngner, S. (1994). Depression, competence, and the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 151(7), 971–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swindell, J. (2009). Two types of autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(1), 52–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tan, J., Stewart, A., Fitzpatrick, R., & Hope, R. (2006). Competence to make treatment decisions in anorexia nervosa: Thinking processes and values. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 13(4), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, J. (2005). Introduction. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Personal autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Varelius, J. (2011). Decision-making competence and respect for patient autonomy. Res Cogitans, 8(1), 33–42.Google Scholar
  32. Vollmann, J. (2006). “But I don’t feel it”: Values and emotions in the assessment of patients with anorexia nervosa. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology, 13(4), 289–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White, L. (2017). How autonomy can legitimate beneficial coercion. In J. Gather, T. Henking, A. Nossek & J. Vollmann (Eds.), Beneficial coercion in psychiatry? Foundations and challenges (pp. 85–99). Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  34. Wolf, S. (1987). Sanity and the metaphysics of responsibility. In F. Schoeman (Ed.), Responsibility, character and emotions: New essays on moral psychology (pp. 46–62). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations