What deserves our respect? Reexamination of respect for autonomy in the context of the management of chronic conditions

被引:3
作者
Enzo, Aya [1 ]
Okita, Taketoshi [1 ]
Asai, Atsushi [1 ]
机构
[1] Tohoku Univ, Grad Sch Med, Dept Med Eth, Aoba Ku, 2-1 Seiryo Machi, Sendai, Miyagi 9808575, Japan
关键词
Chronic conditions; Self-management; Respect for autonomy; Personal autonomy; Respect for persons; Kant; PATIENT AUTONOMY; HEALTH; ETHICS; EMPOWERMENT;
D O I
10.1007/s11019-018-9844-z
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The global increase in patients with chronic conditions has led to increased interest in ethical issues regarding such conditions. A basic biomedical principlerespect for autonomyis 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.
引用
收藏
页码:85 / 94
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1989, CONSTRUCTIONS REASON
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1996, I KANT PRACTICAL PHI
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2001, EXP PAT NEW APPR CHR
  • [4] [Anonymous], 1979, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principle and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Research Subjects
  • [5] Patient empowerment in theory and practice: Polysemy or cacophony?
    Aujoulat, Isabelle
    d'Hoore, William
    Deccache, Alain
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2007, 66 (01) : 13 - 20
  • [6] Beauchamp Tom L, 2010, STANDING PRINCIPLES, p[3, 17]
  • [7] Beauchamp Tom L, 1989, PRINCIPLES BIOMEDICA
  • [8] Bruce Jennings, 2016, HASTINGS CENT REP, V46, p[1, 5]
  • [9] Dependence and a Kantian conception of dignity as a value
    Byers, Philippa
    [J]. THEORETICAL MEDICINE AND BIOETHICS, 2016, 37 (01) : 61 - 69
  • [10] Carolyn Mcleod, 2000, RELATIONAL AUTONOMY, P259