The Confucian bioethics of surrogate decision making: Its communitarian roots



The family is the exemplar community of Chinese society. This essay explores how Chinese communitarian norms, expressed in thick commitments to the authority and autonomy of the family, are central to contemporary Chinese bioethics. In particular, it focuses on the issue of surrogate decision making to illustrate the Confucian family-grounded communitarian bioethics. The essay first describes the way in which the family, in Chinese bioethics, functions as a whole to provide consent for significant medical and surgical interventions when a patient has lost decision-making capacity. It is argued that the practice of not having an established order for surrogate decision makers (e.g., spouse, children, and then parents), as it is done in the United States, reflects the acknowledgment that the family as a social reality cannot be reduced to a stereotype of the appropriate order of default decision makers. This description of the family as being in authority to make surrogate decisions for an incompetent family member is enriched by an elaboration of the differences among the concepts of patient autonomy, family autonomy, and moral autonomy. The Chinese model, as well as the Confucian communitarian life of families, engages a family autonomy that is supported by a Confucian understanding of moral autonomy, rather than individual autonomy. Finally, the issue of possible conflicts between patient and family interests in relation to a patient’s past wishes in the Chinese model is addressed in light of the role of the physician.


Bioethics Communitarianism Confucianism Family Surrogate decision making 


  1. 1.
    Etzioni, Amitai. 1996. The new golden rule: Community and morality in a democratic society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tse, Chun-yan, and Julia Tao. 2004. Strategic ambiguities in the process of consent: Role of the family in decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment for incompetent elderly patients. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Texas Legislature. 2005. Consent for medical treatment. In Health and safety code. Accessed July 21, 2011.
  4. 4.
    Cherry, Mark, and H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. 2004. Informed consent in Texas: Theory and practice. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boisaubin, Eugene. 2004. Observations of physician, patient, and family perceptions of informed consent in Houston, Texas. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Texas Legislature. 2005. Advance directives. In Health and safety code. Accessed July 21, 2011.
  7. 7.
    Cong, Yali. 2004. Doctor-family-patient relationship: The Chinese paradigm of informed consent. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fan, Ruiping, and Li Benfu. 2004. Truth telling in medicine: The Confucian view. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fan, Ruiping, and Julia Tao. 2004. Consent to medical treatment: The complex interplay of patients, families, and physicians. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fan, Ruiping. 2002. Reconsidering surrogate decision-making: Aristotelianism and Confucianism on ideal human relations. Philosophy East & West 52: 346–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, Xiaoyang, and Ruiping Fan. 2010. The family and harmonious medical decision making: Cherishing an appropriate Confucian moral balance. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35: 573–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fan, Ruiping. 2010. Reconstructionist Confucianism: Rethinking morality after the West. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yiliao jigou guanli tiaoli [Statutes on the management of medical institutions]. 1994. Accessed July 21, 2011.
  14. 14.
    Zhiye yishi fa [Physician licence law]. 1999. Accessed July 21, 2011.
  15. 15.
    Yiliao shigu chuli tiaoli [Statutes on disposing medical malpractices]. 2002. Accessed July 21, 2011.
  16. 16.
    Chan, Ho Mun. 2009. Ethical considerations on end-of-life decision making. International Journal of Chinese and Comparative Philosophy of Medicine 7: 55–66.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fan, Ruiping. 1997. Self-determination vs. family–determination: Two incommensurable principles of autonomy. Bioethics 11: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sulmasy, Daniel P., Mark T. Hughes, Richard E. Thompson, et al. 2007. How would terminally ill patients have others make decisions for them in the even of decisional incapacity? A longitudinal study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 55: 1981–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chan, Joseph. 2002. Moral autonomy, civil liberties, and Confucianism. Philosophy East & West 52: 230–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City University of Hong KongKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations