In the health care professions, the meaning of—and implications for—‘dignity’ and ‘value’ are progressively more important, as scholars and practitioners increasingly have to make value judgments when making care decisions. This paper looks at the various arguments for competing sources of human value that medical professionals can consider—human rights, autonomy, and a higher-order moral value—and settles upon a foundational model that is related to the Kantian model that is popular within the medical community: human value is foundational; human dignity, autonomy, (...) and rights derive from the relational quality of human dignity. Moral dignity is expressed though the relationships we cultivate, the communal ends we pursue, and the rights we enjoy. Correlatively, human dignity is inseparable from its ground, and the relationship between these two is best represented for Kant in the humanities formulation. The foundational model of dignity ensures that human value is non-circularly derived, but is ultimately tied to expressions of individual human dignity that comes from the dignity of morality. Linking Kant’s dignity of humanity to the dignity of morality affords a unique and efficacious response to the discussion of human value. In one sense, dignity is amplificatory, since its worth is inextricable with that of autonomy and the rights afforded to the autonomous. But that isn’t to say that the worth of dignity is merely amplificatory. Rather, human dignity indicates the absolute inner value found in each individual in virtue of being human. That inner worth engenders certain universal rights—derivable from the dignity and fundamental rational appeal of morality—just as it provides for the possibility for a community of beings to seek to live the moral life. (shrink)

Background: Dignified care is one of the main objectives of holistic care. Furthermore, paying attention to dignity as one of the fundamental rights of patients is extremely important. However, in many cases, the dignity of hospitalized patients is not considered. Dignity is an abstract concept, and comprehensive studies of the dignity of Iranian patients hospitalized in general hospital settings are limited. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the concept of dignity from the perspective of patients hospitalized in (...) general hospital settings in Iran. Research design: This study takes a qualitative approach. Data were gathered using individual, semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis was the method used to analyse and interpret the data. The criteria suggested by Guba and Lincoln were used ensure the trustworthiness of the study. Participants and research context: A total of 14 hospitalized patients in general hospital settings in Shiraz participated in this study. Ethical considerations: The Research Ethics Committee of the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences approved the protocol of the study and the ethical principles were followed throughout. Findings: The findings of this study revealed four main themes – ‘respectful atmosphere’, ‘patient privacy’, ‘preservation of authority’ and ‘receiving attention’ – and 10 categories. Discussion: Patients need to be hospitalized in a respectable environment in which their privacy is preserved and paid attention, providing them with sufficient authority in terms of medical decisions and their life-related issues. The dignity of hospitalized patients will be preserved under these conditions. Conclusion: Patients hospitalized in general hospital settings need to retain their dignity. This can contribute to the optimal therapeutic outcomes for them. Therefore, it is suggested that a cultural, professional and institutional background, in which all components of the patient’s dignity are protected and emphasized, should be provided. (shrink)

In the age of artificial intelligence, the common interest in human autonomy is experiencing a revival. Autonomy has formerly and mostly been investigated from a theoretical scientific perspective, in which scholars from various disciplines have linked autonomy with the concepts of dignity, independence from others, morality, self-awareness, and unconventionality. In a series of three semi-qualitative, preregistered online studies, we investigated laypersons' understanding of autonomy with a bottom-up procedure to find out how far lay intuition is consistent with scientific theory. First, (...) in Study 1, participants provided us with at least three and up to 10 examples of autonomous behaviors, for a total of 807 meaningful examples. With the help of blinded research assistants, we sorted the obtained examples into categories, from which we generated 34 representative items for the following studies. Next, in Study 2, we asked a new sample of participants to rate the degree of autonomy reflected in each of these 34 items. Last, we presented the five highest-rated and the five lowest-rated items to the participants of Study 3, whom we asked to evaluate how strongly they represented the components of autonomy: dignity, independence from others, morality, self-awareness, and unconventionality. We identified that dignity, independence from others, morality, and self-awareness significantly distinguished between high- and low-autonomy items, implying that high autonomy items were rated higher on dignity, independence from others, morality, and self-awareness than low autonomy items, but unconventionality did not. Our findings contribute to both our understanding of autonomous behaviors and connecting lay intuition with scientific theory. (shrink)