Background The principle of respect for autonomy (PRA) is a central tenet of bioethics. In the quest for a global bioethics, it is pertinent to ask whether this principle can be applied as it is to cultures and societies that are devoid of the Western sociopolitical historical pressures that led to its emergence. Relational autonomists have argued for a more inclusive approach to patient autonomy which takes into account factors such as interdependency and social relations. However, at the outset of (...) any relational approach, it is necessary to identify underlying factors that influence patient autonomy in non-Western cultures. Objective To conduct a review of the literature to uncover the mechanisms through which social, cultural, and religious factors influence and impact the application of the PRA in healthcare decision-making in non-Western cultures and societies. Methods We conducted a systematic review through a comprehensive search of three major electronic databases of biomedical sciences. Returned citations were imported to Covidence, full texts were assessed for eligibility, included articles were thoroughly reviewed and data was synthesized. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results Our search retrieved 590 non-duplicate results, 50 of which were included after screening and full-text eligibility checks. The included studies were predominantly qualitative in nature, with few quantitative, mixed-methods, and review studies included. Our synthesis of data identified nine key factors that influenced patients’ autonomous decision-making through cultural, social, religious, or intersectional pathways. Conclusion Two main conclusions emerge from this review. Firstly, there is a notable dearth of bioethical research examining the influence of diverse factors on patients’ inclination towards different conceptions of autonomy. Secondly, the analysis of prevalent collectivist cultures and deference of autonomy adds value to the solution-oriented relational autonomy debate. This raises questions regarding how decision-making can be truly autonomous in the presence of such large-scale factors, warranting further attention. (shrink)

Respect for Autonomy has been a mainstay of medical ethics since its enshrinement as one of the four principles of biomedical ethics by Beauchamp and Childress’ in the late 1970s. This paper traces the development of this modern concept from Antiquity to the present day, paying attention to its Enlightenment origins in Kant and Rousseau. The rapid C20th developments of bioethics and RFA are then considered in the context of the post-war period and American socio-political thought. The validity and utility (...) of the RFA are discussed in light of this philosophical-historical account. It is concluded that it is not necessary to embrace an ethic of autonomy in order to guard patients from coercion or paternalism, and that, on the contrary, the dominance of autonomy threatens to undermine those very things which have helped doctors come to view and respect their patients as persons. (shrink)

Within bioethics, Kant’s conception of autonomy is often portrayed as excessively rationalistic, abstract, and individualistic, and, therefore, far removed from the reality of patients’ needs. Drawing on recent contributions in Kantian philosophy, we argue that specific features of Kantian autonomy remain relevant for medical ethics and for patient experience. We use contemporary end-of-life illness narratives—a resource that has not been analyzed with respect to autonomy—and show how they illustrate important Kantian themes, namely, the duty to know oneself, the interest in (...) elaborating universalizable principles, and the emphasis on ideals as points of orientation that guide behavior without ever being fully realized. As Kant does, the patient-authors discussed here perceive the end of life as a moment to reflect on the constitutive principles which have governed that life, thereby offering a privileged moment to pursue self-knowledge. We argue that bioethical conceptions of autonomy stand to gain if they revise their conception of Kantian moral philosophy as too formal, abstract, and detached from emotions and personal relationships to be helpfully applied. (shrink)

The article examines the statements made by Immanuel Kant with reference to medicine as well as the impact of his philosophy on medicine. It describes the initial reaction of Kantian philosophy on medicine in the late 18th and early 19th century and its influence in the late 20th century.

Health care services increasingly face patient populations with high levels of ethnic and cultural diversity. Cultures are associated with distinctive ways of life; concepts of personhood; value systems; and visions of the good that affect illness experience, help seeking, and clinical decision-making. Cultural differences may impede access to health care, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatment. The clinical encounter, therefore, must recognize relevant cultural differences, negotiate common ground in terms of problem definition and potential solutions, accommodate differences that are associated with (...) good clinical outcomes, and manage irresolvable differences. Clinical attention to and respect for cultural difference (a) can provide experiences of recognition that increase trust in and commitment to the institutions of the larger society, (b) can help sustain a cultural community through recognition of its distinct language, knowledge, values, and healing practices, and (c) to the extent that it is institutionalized, can contribute to building a pluralistic civil society. (shrink)

Any ethical argument involving the problems of access to assisted reproductive technologies should entail the discussion of the decision protocol and consider the individual deliberating on the appropriateness of these remedies from the point of view of self and community. Yet, arguments based on patients' own moral calculations are rare in the bioethics literature. The moral voice behind most discourses concerning ARTs is that of an outwardly independent spectator, who nonetheless proceeds to justify a personally significant worldview in the utilization (...) of these resources. Investigators grounded in social and legal sciences have offered relevant arguments in this regard, but because their discourses are derived from research protocols specific to their respective disciplines, they fail to provide a general rationale applicable to moral deliberation. (shrink)