Skip to main content
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2005 Mar;31(3):127–130. doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.008292

Autonomy in medical ethics after O'Neill

G Stirrat 1, R Gill 1
PMCID: PMC1734107  PMID: 15738430

Abstract

Following the influential Gifford and Reith lectures by Onora O'Neill, this paper explores further the paradigm of individual autonomy which has been so dominant in bioethics until recently and concurs that it is an aberrant application and that conceptions of individual autonomy cannot provide a sufficient and convincing starting point for ethics within medical practice. We suggest that revision of the operational definition of patient autonomy is required for the twenty first century. We follow O'Neill in recommending a principled version of patient autonomy, which for us involves the provision of sufficient and understandable information and space for patients, who have the capacity to make a settled choice about medical interventions on themselves, to do so responsibly in a manner considerate to others. We test it against the patient–doctor relationship in which each fully respects the autonomy of the other based on an unspoken covenant and bilateral trust between the doctor and patient. Indeed we consider that the dominance of the individual autonomy paradigm harmed that relationship. Although it seems to eliminate any residue of medical paternalism we suggest that it has tended to replace it with an equally (or possibly even more) unacceptable bioethical paternalism. In addition it may, for example, lead some doctors to consider mistakenly that unthinking acquiescence to a requested intervention against their clinical judgement is honouring "patient autonomy" when it is, in fact, abrogation of their duty as doctors.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (68.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Atkins K. Autonomy and the subjective character of experience. J Appl Philos. 2000;17(1):71–79. doi: 10.1111/1468-5930.00141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brock D. W., Wartman S. A. When competent patients make irrational choices. N Engl J Med. 1990 May 31;322(22):1595–1599. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199005313222209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dekkers W. J. Autonomy and dependence: chronic physical illness and decision-making capacity. Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4(2):185–192. doi: 10.1023/a:1011497901122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Draper Heather, Sorell Tom. Patients' responsibilities in medical ethics. Bioethics. 2002 Aug;16(4):335–352. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Illingworth Patricia. Trust: the scarcest of medical resources. J Med Philos. 2002 Feb;27(1):31–46. doi: 10.1076/jmep.27.1.31.2969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jennings Bruce. Good-bye to all that ... autonomy. J Clin Ethics. 2002 Spring;13(1):67–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Savulescu J., Boyd K. M. Institute of Medical Ethics prize for the most innovative web publication. J Med Ethics. 2003 Feb;29(1):1–1. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Savulescu J., Boyd K. M. Institute of Medical Ethics prize for the most innovative web publication. J Med Ethics. 2003 Feb;29(1):1–1. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Spiro H. M., Mandell H. N. When doctors get sick. Ann Intern Med. 1998 Jan 15;128(2):152–154. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-2-199801150-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tauber Alfred I. Sick autonomy. Perspect Biol Med. 2003 Fall;46(4):484–495. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2003.0093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES