Hospize verstehen sich als Orte einer ganzheitlichen Sterbebegleitung, welche nicht allein die Behandlung körperlicher und psychischer Symptome, sondern auch die soziale und spirituelle Betreuung der Sterbenden beinhaltet. Eine zentrale Bedeutung innerhalb dieser umfassenden Begleitung am Lebensende hat die Idee der Selbstbestimmung. Dem Hospizgast soll ermöglicht werden, im Sinne einer größtmöglichen Autonomie über die eigenen Belange bis zuletzt selbst entscheiden zu können. Diese zentrale Zielsetzung der Hospizarbeit wurde in der Literatur bisher überwiegend in theoretisch-programmatischer Weise thematisiert, es liegen jedoch kaum Untersuchungen (...) zu der Frage vor, wie die Idee der „Selbstbestimmung bis zuletzt“ im Alltag der Hospize praktisch umgesetzt wird. Über die besonderen Umstände der Pflege in stationären Hospizen hinaus ist der hier zugrunde gelegte Begriff von Autonomie auch von grundsätzlichem medizinethischen Interesse. Das ganzheitlich-palliative Konzept von Behandlung und Pflege, welches bereits im Hospiz als Institution fest verankert ist, legt nahe, dass die Idee der Selbstbestimmung in diesem Umfeld anders konzeptualisiert wird als im Bereich der „klassischen“, zumeist kurativ orientierten Medizin. Die qualitative Interviewstudie mit haupt- und ehrenamtlichen Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern konnte zeigen, dass in stationären Hospizen ein Konzept von Selbstbestimmung vertreten wird, welches über rein medizinische Entscheidungen weit hinausgeht. Zugleich konnte aber auch herausgearbeitet werden, wo nach Ansicht der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter mögliche Grenzen der Selbstbestimmung des Gastes im Hospiz liegen. (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)

For years now, autonomy has been discussed as one of the central values in health care. Understood as self-realization, it is opposed to paternalism which is conceived as an intolerable occurrence of heteronomy. Although different concepts have been developed to nuance this opposition, when it comes to health care discourse, heteronomy is still the enemy of autonomy. In our article, we defend the thesis that autonomy is only achievable as heteronomy. We are not arguing for an expansion of the meaning (...) of autonomy, but are attempting to conduct an analysis which lays bare the ‘disrupting’ attendance of heteronomy within the principle of autonomy. Autonomy does not begin where heteronomy ends, but can only begin if heteronomy is already involved. To emphasize this, we prefer to elaborate a new concept: ‘oughtonomy’. This concept is inspired by Jacques Derrida’s distinction between ‘difference’ and ‘differance’. We will develop the concept of oughtonomy from a deconstructive reading of Kant’s idea of autonomy, inspired by philosophers such as Jacob Rogozinski, Jean-Luc Nancy and others. In addition to a first exploration of this concept, this article also discusses the possible consequences of oughtonomy for current debates concerning health care. Our quest for a new understanding of autonomy is motivated by the concern that, although the accent on autonomy as self-realization and independence has many advantages, we should also bear in mind the countless disadvantages. (shrink)