Skip to main content
Log in

From a critique of the principle of autonomy to an ethic of heteronomy

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Etymologically, autonomy is the ability to give oneself rules and follow them. It is an important principle of medical ethics, which can sometimes raise some tensions in the care relationship. We propose a new definition of ethics, the ethics of heteronomy: a self-normative, discursive and responsible autonomy. Autonomy cannot be considered without the responsibility each person must have towards others. In the care relationship, autonomy would be more the ability of each person to reach out to others than the ability to decide alone. The care relationship must be seen as an accompaniment of equals where each person allows the other to be rephrased. Autonomy would then no longer be absolute but relative to each situation. Being autonomous would become an ability for adaptation of the patient-doctor pair. The accompaniment allows the birth of a relationship of trust, giving the patient and the doctor the ability to touch and let themselves be touched, thus making each one progress in this reciprocal dialectic. The care relationship becomes the possibility of considering autonomy as a collective and not as an individual notion only. Paradoxically, by promoting the autonomy of the patient-doctor pair, they both develop their own autonomy.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, K.J. 2004. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. 1963. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82 (2): 141–149.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Barrier, P. 2014. [The autonomous patient] Le patient autonome. 1st ed. France: PUF (Question de soin).

  • Beal, C. 2012. John Stuart Mill and Liberal Paternalism. Archives De Philosophie 75 (2): 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed., 480. New York: OUP USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beveridge, W. 1942. Report to the Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boubeker, A. 2011. [The capable man confronted to social invisibility] L’homme capable à l’épreuve de l’invisibilité sociale. Le Portique Revue de philosophie et de sciences humaines [Internet]; (26). http://journals.openedition.org/leportique/2511. Accessed 20 May 2019.

  • Canguilhem, G. 1991. The Normal and the Pathological. First American Edition. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Châtel, T. 2010. [Ethics of “taking care”: solicitude, care, accompaniment] Ethique du “prendre soin” : sollicitude, care, accompagnement. In: Traité de bioéthique I : Fondements, principes, repères. Paris, France: érès, p. 84.

  • Counsil of State, Assemblée, 26 October 2001, 198546 [Internet]. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?oldAction=rechJuriAdmin&idTexte=CETATEXT000008072785&fastReqId=564742882&fastPos=1. Accepted 18 May 2019.

  • Dworkin, G. 2015. Defining Paternalism. In New Perspectives on Paternalism and Health Care. Springer.

  • Foessel, M. 2011. [Kant or the virtues of autonomy] Kant ou les vertus de l’autonomie. Etudes 414 (3): 341–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • French Public Health Code - Article L1111-4. Public Health Code.

  • French Public Health Code - Article L1111-1. French Public Health Code.

  • French Public Health Code - Article L1110-1. French Public Health Code.

  • French Law No. 99-641 of July 27, 1999 creating universal health coverage.

  • Gómez-Vírseda, C., Y. de Maeseneer, and C. Gastmans. 2019. Relational Autonomy: What Does It Mean and How Is It Used in End-of-Life Care? A Systematic Review of Argument-Based Ethics Literature. BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1): 76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, 1st ed., 225. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1994. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Reissue, 229. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen-Løve, L. 2016. [Does future humanity have rights?] L’humanité à venir a-t-elle des droits ? In: Cours particuliers de philosophie, questions pour le temps présent, 264–275. France: Belin.

  • Hippocrates. 1923. Hippocrates, Volume I: Ancient Medicine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Hottois, G., and J.N. Missa. 2001. [New Encyclopedia of Bioethics] Nouvelle encyclopédie de la bioéthique. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffro, L. 2001. [Habermas and the subject of the discussion] Habermas et le sujet de la discussion. Cites 5 (1): 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. 1985. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. University of Chicago Press.

  • Kant, I. 1996. The Metaphysics of Morals. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kant, I. 2015. Critique of Practical Reason, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Pen, C., and P. Lévy. 2014. L’évaluation médico-économique, Concepts et méthodes. Paris: LGM Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, 13262nd ed., 314. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J.S. 2002. On Liberty, 1st ed., 112. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 2017. Plato: Euthyphro. Apology. Crito. Phaedo. Bilingual Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • [Responsibility: refusal of transfusion] Responsabilité : refus transfusionnel. Dalloz. 2007. (26): 1848–1853

  • Ricoeur, P. 1995. Oneself as Another. Reissue Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. 2003. The Just. 1st Edition. Chicago, Ill.; London: University of Chicago Press.

  • Schieber, A.C., M. Kelly-Irving, J.P. Génolini, M. Membrado, L. Tanguy, C. Fabre, et al. 2017. Integrating Multidisciplinary Results to Produce New Knowledge About the Physician-Patient Relationship: A Methodology Applied to the INTERMEDE Project. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11 (2): 174–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, J.A., G. Simpson, and D.E. Suicide. 2010. A Study in Sociology. Reissue Edition. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinoza, B. 1676. Letter LXXVIII to Oldenburg.

  • Spinoza. 2000. Ethics. New Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Stroumsa, D., E.F.S. Roberts, H. Kinnear, and L.H. Harris. 2019. The Power and Limits of Classification—A 32-Year-Old Man with Abdominal Pain. New England Journal of Medicine 380 (20): 1885–1888.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The National Consultative Ethics Committee. 2005. [Refusal of treatment and autonomy of the person] Refus de traitement et autonomie de la personne [Internet], p. 39. Report No.: 087. https://www.ccne-ethique.fr/sites/default/files/publications/avis087.pdf.

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Martinet-Kosinski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinet-Kosinski, F. From a critique of the principle of autonomy to an ethic of heteronomy. Med Health Care and Philos 27, 71–80 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10185-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10185-5

Keywords

Navigation