Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is Autonomy Anyway?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theories of the Self and Autonomy in Medical Ethics

Part of the book series: The International Library of Bioethics ((ILB,volume 83))

Abstract

Autonomy is an important concept for numerous disciplines. Besides philosophy, it occupies an important place in sociology, psychology, biology, computer sciences, etc. Within philosophy, the concept of autonomy is central to a range of philosophical areas such as metaphysics, ethics, social and political philosophy. And within ethics, questions regarding the nature and value of autonomy have important consequences for questions of moral responsibility and free will, in addition to a variety of concerns in practical ethics. This is why there is no unique conception of autonomy, but rather a variety of conceptions, shaped around on the concerns and questions in the field in which it is utilized.

This paper is funded by The Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia, as a part of the project “Dynamic Systems in Nature and Society: Philosophical and Empirical Aspects”, no. 179041.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I thank the editors of this volume, Michael Kühler and Veselin Mitrovic, and Lucie White for their helpful comments and suggestions on the first version of this paper.

  2. 2.

    Beauchamp and Childress explicitly invoke both Kant’s deontology and Mill’s liberalism in their formulation of the principle of autonomy in the first edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics, but in subsequent editions, the Kantian view of autonomy became less important than the Millian view.

  3. 3.

    For a discussion of other various contemporary conceptions of autonomy and the ways in which they differ from Kant’s conception see Hill (2013, 15–32) and Schneewind (2013, 146–169).

  4. 4.

    Nevertheless, one might point out that Kant emphasizes the autonomy of persons in speaking of our capacity to act autonomously. According to him, all finite rational beings have the capacity to give themselves a law for action, which can only be the moral law. This certainly speaks in favor of Kant’s conception of autonomy as characteristic of agents, i.e. personal autonomy. However, Kant speaks of autonomous persons in the sense only of moral, not personal autonomy. For him, persons have the capacity to act autonomously if and only if they have the capacity to act morally. Therefore, autonomous persons are only those able to take the categorical imperative as their fundamental law.

  5. 5.

    This is the reason why Onora O’Neill uses the term principled autonomy when referring to Kant’s conception of autonomy (O’Neill 2002, 85). Some other references to Kant’s conception of autonomy include terms such as will autonomy (Dan-Cohen 2002, 135) and metaphysical autonomy (Gracia 2012, 58–59).

  6. 6.

    Although Mill never uses the term “autonomy” in On Liberty, contemporary authors often use it in reviewing and explicating his position. See, for example, Donner (2008), Gray (1996) and Turner (2013).

  7. 7.

    For the phrase “first among equals” used in this context see Gillon (2003).

  8. 8.

    For more on nature and different types of coercion, persuasion and manipulation see: Faden and Beauchamp (1986, 337–368).

  9. 9.

    Discussion on adaptive preferences stems from John Elster’s work on social choice theory (Elster 1983). Besides in discussion on end-of-life decision making, the topic also has figured in the discussion of human enhancement (Räikkä and Varelius 2013) and on female oppression (Nussbaum 2001).

  10. 10.

    For a more extensive statement and defense of this way of construing autonomy see: (Beauchamp and Childress 2013).

References

  • Aristotle. 1998. Politics, ed. R.F. Stalley and Ernest Barker. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 2000. Nicomachean Ethics, ed. by Roger Crisp. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 1979. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, P. 2005. Feminist Intuitions and the Normative Substance of Autonomy. In Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and Its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy, ed. J.S. Taylor, 124–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N. 1999. A problem for the Idea of Voluntary Euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (3): 242–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, S. 2010. How Should Feminist Autonomy Theorists Respond to the Problem of Internalized Oppression? Social Theory and Practice 36 (3): 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christman, J. 2004. Relational Autonomy, Liberal Individualism, and the Social Constitution of Selves. Philosophical Studies 117: 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christman, J. 2009. The Politics of Persons. Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, B. 2013. Autonomy and End of Life Decision: A Paradox. In Adaptation and Autonomy: Adaptive Preferences in Enhancing and Ending Life, ed. Juha Räikkä and Jukka Varelius, 69–80. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dan-Cohen, M. 2002. Harmful Thoughts: Essays on Law. Self and Morality: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donner, W. 2008. Autonomy, Tradition and the Enforcement of Morality. In Mill’s On Liberty: A critical Guide, ed. C.L. Ten, 138–164. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. 2015. The Nature of Autonomy. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 2: 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. 1983. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H. T. 2001. The Many Faces of Autonomy. Health Care Analysis 9 (3): 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faden, R.R., and Beauchamp, T.L. 1986. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. 1986. Harm to Self. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 2003. Autonomy. Gender, Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, R. 1985. Philosophical Medical Ethics. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, R. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracia, D. 2012. The Many Faces of Autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (1): 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. 1996. Mill on Liberty: a Defence. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, T.E. 1992. The Kantian Conception of Autonomy. In Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant’s Moral Theory, 79–96. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, T.E. 2013. Kantian Autonomy and Contemporary Ideas of Autonomy. In Kant on Moral Autonomy, ed. Oliver Svensen, 15–31. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. 2008. The Individualist Model of Autonomy and the Challenge of Disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (2–3): 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hustey, F.M., and S.W. Meldon. 2002. The Prevalence and Documentation of Impaired Mental Status in Elderly Emergency Department Patients. Annals of Emergency Medicine 39 (3): 248–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikonomidis, S., and P. Singer. 1999. Autonomy, Liberalism and Advance Care Planning. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (6): 522–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 2002. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Allen W. Wood. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, P. and J.R. Dahl. 2008. The Barcelona Declaration: Towards an Integrated Approach to Basic Ethical Principles. Synthesis Philosophica 23 (2): 239–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, L.K., D.S. Watkinson, and N.L. Beng. 2015. Limits to Relational Autonomy—the Singaporean Experience. Nursing Ethics 22 (3): 331–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, agency, and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, T. 1994. The Concept of Autonomy. Philosophical Quarterly 31 (2): 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, C. 2002. Self-Trust and Reproductive Autonomy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, D.T. 2002. Gender in the Mirror: Cultural Imagery and Women’s Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. 2009. On Liberty. The Floating Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. 2001. Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Options. Economics and Philosophy 17 (1): 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. 2002. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshana, M. 2016. Personal Autonomy in Society. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, D. Edmund., and C. David. Thomasma. 1981. A Philosophical Basis of Practice: Toward a Philosophy and Ethic of the Healing Professions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisani, M.A., L. McNicoll, and S.K. Inouye. 2003. Cognitive Impairment in the Intensive Care Unit. Clinics in Chest Medicine 24 (4): 727–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Räikkä, Juha and Jukka, Varelius. (eds.). 2013. Adaptation and Autonomy: Adaptive Preferences in Enhancing and Ending Life. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymont, V., W. Bingley, A. Buchanan, A.S. David, P. Hayward, S. Wessely, and M. Hotopf. 2004. Prevalence of Mental Incapacity in Medical Inpatients and Associated Risk Factors: Cross-Sectional Study. Lancet 364 (9443): 1421–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, H. 2001. Autonomy’s Many Normative Presuppositions. American Philosophical Quarterly 38: 287–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, M.H., D.S. Krantz, A. Wichman, H. Masur, E. Reed, and J.K. Vinicky. 1996. The Impact of Disease Severity on the Informed Consent Process in Clinical Research. American Journal of Medicine 100 (3): 261–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneewind, J.B. 2013. Autonomy after Kant. In Kant on Moral Autonomy, ed. Oliver Svensen, 146–69. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secker, B. 1999. The Appearance of Kant’s Deontology in Contemporary Kantianism: Concepts of Patient Autonomy in Bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (1): 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stajduhar, K., L. Funk, E. Jakobsson, and J. Öhlén. 2010. A Critical Analysis of Health Promotion and ‘Empowerment’ in the Context of Palliative Family Caregiving. Nurs Inquiry 17 (3): 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.S. 2005. Introduction. In Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and Its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy, ed. Taylor James Stacey, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.S. 2009. Practical Autonomy and Bioethics. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D. C.: United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N.P. 2013. The Absolutism Problem in On Liberty. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43 (3): 322–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. 2013. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA 310 (20): 2191–2194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M.S. 2017. End of Life and Autonomy: The Case for Relational Nudges in End-of-Life Decision-Making Law and policy. Maryland Law Review 77 (4): 1062–1141.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Milijana Đerić

Authors
  1. Milijana Đerić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milijana Đerić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands

    Michael Kühler

  2. Institute of Social Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Veselin L. Mitrović

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Đerić, M. (2020). What is Autonomy Anyway?. In: Kühler, M., Mitrović, V.L. (eds) Theories of the Self and Autonomy in Medical Ethics. The International Library of Bioethics, vol 83. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56703-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation