What deserves our respect? Reexamination of respect for autonomy in the context of the management of chronic conditions
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.
KeywordsChronic conditions Self-management Respect for autonomy Personal autonomy Respect for persons Kant
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number 16K16681.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
- Barclay, Linda. 2000. Autonomy and the social self. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 52–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 1989. Principles of biomedical ethics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Department of Health. 2001. The expert patient: A new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
- Dillon, Robin S. 2016. Respect. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, winter 2016 edition, ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/respect/. Accessed 30 Oct 2017.
- Dodds, Susan. 2000. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 213–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Friedman, Marilyn. 2000. Autonomy, social disruption, and women. In Relational autonomy, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 35–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Herman, Barbara. 1993. Mutual aid and respect for persons. In The practice of moral judgment, ed. Barbara Herman, 45–72. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Jennings, Bruce. 2016. Reconceptualizing autonomy: A relational turn in bioethics. Hastings Center Report 46: 1–5.Google Scholar
- Jonsen, Albert R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Kishi, Keiko, ed. 2015. Serufu-Negurekuto no Hito heno Shien [Support for persons with self-neglect], Chuou-Hoki-Syuppan-Kabushikigaisya (in Japanese).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2017.
- O’Neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Reach, Gérard. 2014. Patient autonomy in chronic care: Solving a paradox. Patient Preference and Adherence 8: 15–24.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- Taylor, James S., ed. 2008. Personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- The Japan Geriatrics Society. 2012. Koreisha kea no ishi kettei purosesu ni kansuru gaidorain [JGS guidelines for decision-making process in elderly care focusing on indications of artificial hydration and nutrition] (in Japanese). https://www.jpn-geriat-soc.or.jp/proposal/pdf/jgs_ahn_gl_2012.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2017.
- Veatch, Robert M. 2002. The basics of bioethics. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Veatch, Robert M. 2010. The basics of bioethics. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar