title: Autonomy in medical ethics after O'Neill.
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.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Ethics in Medicine University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. gstirrat@blueyonder.co.uk
authors.forename: G M
authors.initials: GM
authors.lastname: Stirrat
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Gill
mesh_terms: D026686:Beneficence; D026690:Ethics, Clinical; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D026706:Paternalism; D028701:Patient Rights; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D035502:Trust
references.citation: Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4(2):185-92
references.pmid: 11547504
references.citation: J Appl Philos. 2000;17(1):71-9
references.pmid: 11759714
references.citation: J Med Philos. 2002 Feb;27(1):31-46
references.pmid: 11961685
references.citation: J Clin Ethics. 2002 Spring;13(1):67-71
references.pmid: 12235686
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1998 Jan 15;128(2):152-4
references.pmid: 9441578
references.citation: Bioethics. 2002 Aug;16(4):335-52
references.pmid: 12956177
references.citation: Perspect Biol Med. 2003 Fall;46(4):484-95
references.pmid: 14593218
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1990 May 31;322(22):1595-9
references.pmid: 2336090
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2003 Feb;29(1):1
references.pmid: 12569183