Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:54:31.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The misuse of autonomy in ethical decision-making – time for a change?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

Monica Crugel ,
Adrian Treloar  and
Rafael Euba
Monica Crugel
Affiliation:
Specialist Registrar, Memorial Hospital, London, U.K. Email: [email protected]
Adrian Treloar
Affiliation:
Consultant and Visiting Senior Lecturer, Oxleas NHS Trust and the Institute of Psychiatry, London, U.K.
Rafael Euba
Affiliation:
Consultant and Senior Lecturer in Old Age Psychiatry, Memorial Hospital, London, U.K.
Get access

Extract

Concepts of personal autonomy and freedom have featured prominently in British social and political history. They are widely regarded as a very positive aspect of British culture. However, the presumption of mental capacity and the privileged status of autonomy over the promotion of well-being may on some occasions result in unnecessary suffering and neglect. Currently, individuals are presumed able to make autonomous decisions about their treatment. Their autonomy can only be challenged through a proactive process, in which the health professional must provide valid arguments for overriding it.

Type
Letter
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 201 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2007

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

Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, T. F. 1994. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gillon, R. 2003. Ethics needs principles – four can encompass the rest – and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals.” Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 307–312. DOI: 10.1136/jme.29.5.307.Google Scholar