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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is a debate regarding the appropriate way to refer to those with autism. As I just did, one might use phrases like “people with autism” or “individuals with autism.” Alternatively, one might use the term “autistics.” Unfortunately, no matter which vocabulary I use, I will end up taking sides in a debate regarding which I have no considered view. I have chosen to use “people first” terminology; however, this should not be taken to be indicative of any stance I have in the relevant debate. I have to make some choice about the language I use. No matter which terminology I decide to employ, one side or the other will be unhappy.
The word “treatment” presupposes a pathological view of Stacy’s stereotypy. Throughout the paper I will put the word in quotes to distance myself from the medical model of disability that the reader may take the word to imply.
I am very grateful to Jessica Graber for drawing my attention to this concern.
I am grateful to a reviewer for drawing my attention to this point.
References
Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. Democratic theory and border coercion no right to unilaterally control your own borders. Political theory 36(1): 37–65.
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Amundson, Ron, and Shari Tresky. 2008. Bioethics and disability rights: Conflicting values and perspectives. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5(2-3): 111–123.
Aspies for Freedom. 2015. Aspies for freedom. Available at https://aspiesforfreedom.wordpress.com/about/.
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cascio, M.Ariel. 2012. Neurodiversity: Autism pride among mothers of children with autism spectrum disorders. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 50(3): 273–283.
Clapton, Jayne. 2003. Tragedy and catastrophe: Contentious discourses of ethics and disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47(7): 540–547.
Cunningham, Allison B., and Laura Schreibman. 2008. Stereotypy in autism: The importance of function. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2(3): 469–479.
Davis, D. 1997. Genetic dilemmas and a child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 27: 7–15.
Durand, V., and E. Carr. 1987. Social influences on ‘‘self stimulatory’’ behavior: Analysis and treatment application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 20: 119–133.
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.
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.
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.
Lord, C. 2011. How common is autism? Nature 474(7350): 166–168.
Mackenzie, Catriona, and Jackie Leach Scully. 2007. Moral imagination, disability and embodiment. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24(4): 335–351.
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.
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.
O’neil, R. 1983. Determining proxy consent. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8: 389–403.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon.
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.
Ross, W.D. 1988. The right and the good. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.
Sinclair, J. 2012. Don’t mourn for us. The Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies 1: 1–4.
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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgements
This paper benefited greatly from the feedback of David Wacker, Wendy Berg, and Matt O'Brien. Above all, I am indepted to my brilliant wife, Jessica Graber. This paper comes out of our many discussions about ethics and disability and would not exist without both her insight and support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graber, A. Autism, intellectual disability, and a challenge to our understanding of proxy consent. Med Health Care and Philos 20, 229–236 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9745-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9745-y