David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 27 (9):493-499 (2013)
Personal autonomy presupposes the notion of rationality. What is not so clear is whether, and how, a compromise of rationality to various degrees will diminish a person's autonomy. In bioethical literature, three major types of threat to the rationality of a patient's medical decision are identified: insufficient information, irrational beliefs/desires, and influence of different framing effects. To overcome the first problem, it is suggested that patients be provided with information about their diseases and treatment choices according to the objective standard. I shall explain how this should be finessed. Regarding the negative impact of irrational beliefs/desires, some philosophers have argued that holding irrational beliefs can still be an expression of autonomy. I reject this argument because the degree of autonomy of a decision depends on the degree of rationality of the beliefs or desires on which the decision is based. Hence, to promote patient autonomy, we need to eliminate irrational beliefs by the provision of evidence and good arguments. Finally, I argue that the way to smooth out the framing effects is to present the same information in different perspectives: it is too often assumed that medical information can always be given in a complete and unadorned manner. This article concludes with a cautionary note that the protection of patient autonomy requires much more time and effort than the current practice usually allows
|Keywords||framing effect informed consent autonomy rationality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Sheila McLean (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Tom Walker (2013). Respecting Autonomy Without Disclosing Information. Bioethics 27 (7):388-394.
N. Stoljar (2011). Informed Consent and Relational Conceptions of Autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (4):375-384.
Douglas O. Stewart & Joseph P. DeMarco (2005). An Economic Theory of Patient Decision-Making. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2 (3):153-164.
Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe (2009). Shared Decision-Making and Patient Autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.
Jos V. M. Welie & Sander P. K. Welie (2001). Patient Decision Making Competence: Outlines of a Conceptual Analysis. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (2):127-138.
Shlomo Cohen (2014). The Nocebo Effect of Informed Consent. Bioethics 28 (3):147-154.
Jerome Bickenbach (2012). Argumentation and Informed Consent in the Doctor–Patient Relationship. Journal of Argumentaion in Context 1 (1):5-18.
David B. Annis (1984). Informed Consent, Autonomy, and the Law. Philosophy Research Archives 10:249-259.
Jukka Varelius (2010). On Taylor's Justification of Medical Informed Consent. Bioethics 26 (4):207-214.
John K. Davis (2004). Precedent Autonomy and Subsequent Consent. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (3):267-291.
Beverly Woodward (2001). Confidentiality, Consent and Autonomy in the Physician-Patient Relationship. Health Care Analysis 9 (3):337-351.
Kam-Yuen Cheng, Thomas Ming & L. A. I. Aaron (2011). Can Familism Be Justified? Bioethics 26 (8):431-439.
Iain Law (2011). Respect for Autonomy: Its Demands and Limits in Biobanking. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 19 (3):259-268.
Gary B. Weiss (1984). Patient Truthfulness: A Test of Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):353-372.
Added to index2012-04-11
Total downloads27 ( #75,901 of 1,689,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #29,630 of 1,689,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?