In interprofessional clinical teams, the patients have interpersonal relationships with several practitioners. The aim of this study was to explore patients’ and practitioners’ perceptions of how such relationships may contribute to promote the whole team’s respect for the patient’s autonomy, as interpersonal patient–provider relationships may contribute to enhance patient autonomy. Sixteen qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 12 informants, including patients, nurses, physiotherapists, and physicians from three rehabilitation teams. Data were analysed according to Grounded Theory procedures. The informants discussed interpersonal (...) relationships as an integral and significant part of the team work. The practitioners tried to adjust their professional approach to the patients’ genuine opinions and let patients decide the teams’ goals. Close relationships with patients could be important to accomplish this, particularly described by nurses and physiotherapists, who could facilitate the communication with the rest of the team. (shrink)

Rationale: In this article, I argue that we need a new perspective in the debate on autonomy in medicine, to understand many of the problems we face today – dilemmas that are situated at the intersection of autonomy and heteronomy, such as why well informed and autonomous people make unhealthy lifestyle choices. If people do not choose what they want, this is not simply caused by their lack of character or capability, but also by the fact that absolute autonomy is (...) impossible; autonomous individuals are ‘contaminated’ by heteronymous aspects, by influences from ‘outside’. Consequently, there are many good reasons to question the widely accepted hierarchical opposition of autonomy (progress) versus heteronomy (paternalism) in medicine. In an earlier article an analysis is made of the neologism ‘oughtonomy’ to support the thesis that when it comes down to human existence, autonomy and heteronomy are intertwined, rather than being merely opposites. Methods: In this article, I reflect upon how social conditions might improve our ‘choice architecture’, what Thaler & Sunstein have called ‘nudging’: how to change individual health choices without being paternalistic? I explore the extent to which both oughtonomy and nudging are able to challenge the question of autonomy in today’s medicine. Results and Conclusions: Autonomy may and should be a shared target in today’s medicine, but we should never forget that it is always intertwined with heteronomy. Starting from this perspective, progress in medicine demands far more than the increase of autonomy. (shrink)