Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T00:11:47.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reviewing Autonomy: Implications of the Neurosciences and the Free Will Debate for the Principle of Respect for the Patient's Autonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2010

SABINE MÜLLER  and
HENRIK WALTER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Beauchamp and Childress have performed a great service by strengthening the principle of respect for the patient's autonomy against the paternalism that dominated medicine until at least the 1970s. Nevertheless, we think that the concept of autonomy should be elaborated further. We suggest such an elaboration built on recent developments within the neurosciences and the free will debate. The reason for this suggestion is at least twofold: First, Beauchamp and Childress neglect some important elements of autonomy. Second, neuroscience itself needs a conceptual apparatus to deal with the neural basis of autonomy for diagnostic purposes. This desideratum is actually increasing because modern therapy options can considerably influence the neural basis of autonomy itself.

Type
Special Section: Philosophical Issues in Neuroethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 205 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:101, 133f.

2. Faden R, Beauchamp T. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.

3. See note 1, Beauchamp, Childress 2009:105.

4. Bayne T, Levy N. Amputees by choice: Body Integrity Identity Disorder and the ethics of amputation. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2005;22(1):75–86; Bridy A. Confounding extremities: Surgery at the medico-ethical limits of self-modification. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004;32(1):148–58; First MB. Desire for amputation of a limb: Paraphilia, psychosis, or a new type of identity disorder. Psychological Medicine 2005;35:919–92; Fisher K, Smith R. More work is needed to explain why patients ask for amputation of healthy limbs [Letters]. British Medical Journal 2000;320:1147; Furth GM, Smith R. Apotemnophilia: Information, Questions, Answers, and Recommendations about Self-Demand Amputation. Bloomington: 1st Books; 2000; Johnston J, Elliott C. Healthy limb amputation: Ethical and legal aspects. Clinical Medicine JRCPL 2002;2(5):431–5; Levy N. Autonomy is (largely) irrelevant. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2009;9(1):50–1; Müller S. Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID)—Is the amputation of healthy limbs ethically justified? American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2009;9(1):36–43; Ramachandran V, McGeoch P. Can vestibular caloric stimulation be used to treat apotemnophilia? Medical Hypotheses 2007;8:250–2; Ryan CJ. Out on a limb: The ethical management of Body Integrity Identity Disorder. Neuroethics 2009;2:21–33; Smith R, Fisher K. Letter to the editor: Healthy limb amputation: Ethical and legal aspects. Clinical Medicine 2003;3(2):188; Swindell JS. Two types of autonomy. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2009;9(1):52–3.

5. See note 1, Beauchamp, Childress 2009:105.

6. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Assessing Competence to Consent in Treatment. A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

7. Vollmann J. Self-Determination of Patients and Ability for Self-Determination [Patientenselbstbestimmung und Selbstbestimmungsfähigkeit]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer; 2008:73–83

8. Frankfurt H. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy 1971;68:5–20.

9. Bieri P. The Handcraft of Freedom [Das Handwerk der Freiheit]. Frankfurt a. M.: Hanser; 2001.

10. Takala T. Concepts of “person” and “liberty,” and their implications to our fading notion of autonomy. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007;33:225–8.

11. Berlin I. Four Essays on Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1969.

12. See note 10, Takala 2007:226.

13. See note 10, Takala 2007:226.

14. See note 10, Takala 2007:228.

15. Walter H. The Neurophilosophy of Free Will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001; Walter H. Neurophilosophy of moral responsibility: The case for revisionist compatibilism. Philosophical Topics 2004;32(1–2):477–503.

16. Romito LM, Raja M, Daniele A, Contarino MF, Bentivoglio AR, Barbier A, et al. Transient mania with hypersexuality after surgery for high frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders 2002;17(6):1371–4; Herzog J, Reiff J, Krack P, Witt K, Schrader B, Müller D, et al. Manic episode with psychotic symptoms induced by subthalamic nucleus stimulation in a patient with Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders 2003;18(11):1382–4; Kulisevsky J, Berthier ML, Gironell A, Pascual-Sedano B, Molet J, Parés P. Mania following deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Neurology 2002;59:1421–4; Houeto JL, Mesnage V, Mallet L, Pillon B, Gargiulo M, du Montcel ST, et al. Behavioural disorders, Parkinson's disease and subthalamic stimulation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2002;72(6):701–7; Sensi M, Eleopra R, Cavallo MA, Sette E, Milani P, Quadrale R, et al. Explosive-aggressive behavior related to bilateral subthalamic stimulation. Parkinsonism Related Disorders 2004;10:247–51.

17. See note 16, Sensi et al. 2004.

18. Leentjens AFG, Visser-Vandewalle V, Temel Y, Verhey FRJ. Manipulation of mental competence: An ethical problem in case of electrical stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for severe Parkinson's diease [Manipuleerbare wilsbekwaamheid: Een ethisch probleem bij elektrostimulatie van de nucleus subthalamicus voor ernstige ziekte van Parkinson]. Dutch Journal for Medicine [Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde] 2004;148(28):1394–8.

19. For an overview, see note 4, Müller 2009.

20. See note 4, Bayne, Levy 2005.

21. See note 1, Beauchamp, Childress 2009:105.

22. See note 4, Levy 2009:50–1.

23. See note 4, Müller 2009.

24. See note 4, Bayne, Levy 2005:75–86.

25. Sacks O. A Leg to Stand On. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1984; Lurija AR. Romantic Science [Romantische Wissenschaft]. Reinbek: Rowohlt; 1993.

26. See note 4, Smith, Fisher 2003:188.

27. See note 4, Müller 2009:36–43.

28. Biran I, Chatterjee A. Alien hand syndrome. Archives of Neurology 2004;61(1):292–4; Scepkowski LA, Cronin-Golomb A. The alien hand: Cases, categorizations, and anatomical correlates. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 2003;2:261–77.

29. See note 4, Ramachandran, McGeoch 2007:250–2.

30. See note 4, Müller 2009:36–43.

31. See note 4, Swindell 2009:52–3.

32. Müller S. BIID—Aqua fortis for scientific explanations of psychic phenomena? American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2009;1:W3–4.

33. Also Beauchamp and Childress propose that where we draw the line between treating persons as competent or incompetent should depend on the particular tasks involved. See note 1, Beauchamp, Childress 2009:114.

34. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995;95:314–7.