Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 229–236 | Cite as

Autism, intellectual disability, and a challenge to our understanding of proxy consent

Scientifc Contribution

Abstract

This paper focuses on a hypothetical case that represents an intervention request familiar to those who work with individuals with intellectual disability. Stacy has autism and moderate intellectual disability. Her parents have requested treatment for her hand flapping. Stacy is not competent to make her own treatment decisions; proxy consent is required. There are three primary justifications for proxy consent: the right to an open future, substituted judgment, and the best interest standard. The right to an open future justifies proxy consent on the assumption of future autonomy whereas substituted judgment justifies proxy consent via reference to past autonomy. Neither applies. Stacy has not been, nor will she be, competent to make her own treatment decisions. The best interest standard justifies proxy consent on the grounds of beneficence. It is unlikely that hand flapping harms Stacy. None of the three primary means of justifying proxy consent apply to Stacy’s case.

Keywords

Proxy consent Principlism Intellectual disability Autism Disability bioethics 

References

  1. Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. Democratic theory and border coercion no right to unilaterally control your own borders. Political theory 36(1): 37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amundson, Ron, and Shari Tresky. 2008. Bioethics and disability rights: Conflicting values and perspectives. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5(2-3): 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aspies for Freedom. 2015. Aspies for freedom. Available at https://aspiesforfreedom.wordpress.com/about/.
  5. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cascio, M.Ariel. 2012. Neurodiversity: Autism pride among mothers of children with autism spectrum disorders. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 50(3): 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clapton, Jayne. 2003. Tragedy and catastrophe: Contentious discourses of ethics and disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47(7): 540–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cunningham, Allison B., and Laura Schreibman. 2008. Stereotypy in autism: The importance of function. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2(3): 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, D. 1997. Genetic dilemmas and a child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 27: 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durand, V., and E. Carr. 1987. Social influences on ‘‘self stimulatory’’ behavior: Analysis and treatment application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 20: 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feinberg, J. 1980. The child’s right to an open future. In Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority, and state power, ed. W. Aiken, and H. LaFollette, 124–153. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Co.Google Scholar
  12. Gillon, Raanan. 2003. Ethics needs principles—Four can encompass the rest—And respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. Journal of Medical Ethics 29(5): 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hume, Kara, Brian A. Boyd, Jill V. Hamm, and Suzanne Kucharczyk. 2014. Supporting independence in adolescents on the autism spectrum. Remedial and Special Education 35(2): 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lord, C. 2011. How common is autism? Nature 474(7350): 166–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mackenzie, Catriona, and Jackie Leach Scully. 2007. Moral imagination, disability and embodiment. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24(4): 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mills, Sarah, and Tammy Hedderly. 2014. A guide to childhood motor stereotypies, tic disorders and the tourette spectrum for the primary care practitioner. The Ulster Medical Journal 83(1): 22.Google Scholar
  17. Mulligan, Sarah, Olive Healy, Sinéad Lydon, Laura Moran, and Ciara Foody. 2014. An analysis of treatment efficacy for stereotyped and repetitive behaviors in autism. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 1(2): 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’neil, R. 1983. Determining proxy consent. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8: 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pace, G., M. Ivancic, G. Edwards, et al. 1985. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 18: 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Piazza, C.C., J.D. Adelinis, G.P. Hanley, H.L. Goh, and M.D. Delia. 2000. An evaluation of the effects of matched stimuli on behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33(1): 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quinn, G., D. Stearsman, L. Campo-Engelstein, et al. 2012. Preserving the right to future children: An ethical case analysis. The American Journal of Bioethics 12: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rapp, John T., and Timothy R. Vollmer. 2005a. Stereotypy I: A review of behavioral assessment and treatment. Research in Developmental Disabilities 26(6): 527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rapp, John T., and Timothy R. Vollmer. 2005b. Stereotypy II: A review of neurobiological interpretations and suggestions for an integration with behavioral methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities 26(6): 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  25. Reed, Florence D.DiGennaro, Jason M. Hirst, and Sarah R. Hyman. 2012. Assessment and treatment of stereotypic behavior in children with autism and other developmental disabilities: A thirty year review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 6(1): 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ross, W.D. 1988. The right and the good. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.Google Scholar
  27. Sinclair, J. 2012. Don’t mourn for us. The Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies 1: 1–4.Google Scholar
  28. Soorya, L., J. Kiarashi, and E. Hollander. 2008. Psychopharmacologic interventions for repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 17: 753–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Torke, A., G. Alexander, and J. Lantos. 2008. Substituted judgment: The limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. Journal of General Internal Medicine 23: 1514–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wehmeyer, Michael L. 1995. Intra-individual factors influencing efficacy of interventions for stereotyped behaviours: A meta-analysis. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 39(3): 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations