Misapplying autonomy: why patient wishes cannot settle treatment decisions.

IF 1.5 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-28 DOI:10.1007/s11017-022-09593-0
Colin Goodman, Timothy Houk
{"title":"Misapplying autonomy: why patient wishes cannot settle treatment decisions.","authors":"Colin Goodman,&nbsp;Timothy Houk","doi":"10.1007/s11017-022-09593-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The principle of autonomy is widely recognized to be of utmost importance in bioethics; however, we argue that this principle is often misapplied when one fails to distinguish two different contexts in medicine. When a particular patient is offered treatment options, she has the ultimate say in whether to proceed with any of those treatments. However, when deciding whether a particular intervention should be regarded as a form of medical treatment in the first place, it is the medical community who has the ultimate say. Some argue that particular interventions should be allowed by virtue of the fact that they are autonomously requested. But making such an argument fails to distinguish between these two contexts and misapplies the principle of autonomy, ultimately having the potential to instigate problematic changes in the practice of medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":46703,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"289-305"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09593-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The principle of autonomy is widely recognized to be of utmost importance in bioethics; however, we argue that this principle is often misapplied when one fails to distinguish two different contexts in medicine. When a particular patient is offered treatment options, she has the ultimate say in whether to proceed with any of those treatments. However, when deciding whether a particular intervention should be regarded as a form of medical treatment in the first place, it is the medical community who has the ultimate say. Some argue that particular interventions should be allowed by virtue of the fact that they are autonomously requested. But making such an argument fails to distinguish between these two contexts and misapplies the principle of autonomy, ultimately having the potential to instigate problematic changes in the practice of medicine.

滥用自主权:为什么病人的意愿不能决定治疗决定。
自主性原则被广泛认为是生命伦理学中最重要的原则;然而,我们认为,当一个人不能区分医学中的两种不同背景时,这一原则经常被误用。当一个特定的病人被提供治疗方案时,她对是否继续这些治疗有最终的发言权。然而,在决定一种特定的干预措施是否应首先被视为一种医疗形式时,拥有最终决定权的是医学界。一些人认为,应该允许特定的干预,因为它们是自主要求的。但是,提出这样的论点未能区分这两种情况,并且误用了自主原则,最终有可能在医学实践中引发有问题的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: AIMS & SCOPE Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics examines clinical judgment and reasoning, medical concepts such as health and disease, the philosophical basis of medical science, and the philosophical ethics of health care and biomedical research Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is an international forum for interdisciplinary studies in the ethics of health care and in the philosophy and methodology of medical practice and biomedical research. Coverage in the philosophy of medicine includes the theoretical examination of clinical judgment and decision making; theories of health promotion and preventive care; the problems of medical language and knowledge acquisition; theory formation in medicine; analysis of the structure and dynamics of medical hypotheses and theories; discussion and clarification of basic medical concepts and issues; medical application of advanced methods in the philosophy of science, and the interplay between medicine and other scientific or social institutions. Coverage of ethics includes both clinical and research ethics, with an emphasis on underlying ethical theory rather than institutional or governmental policy analysis. All philosophical methods and orientations receive equal consideration. The journal pays particular attention to developing new methods and tools for analysis and understanding of the conceptual and ethical presuppositions of the medical sciences and health care processes. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics publishes original scholarly articles, occasional special issues on important topics, and book reviews. Related subjects » Applied Ethics & Social Responsibility – Bioethics – Ethics – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science – Medical Ethics – Medicine – Philosophy – Philosophy of Medicine – Surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信