Principles of autonomy and self-determination have been upheld as vital to modern-day medical and ethical practice. However, the complexities of current health care and changes in the expectation of some patients and their families justify a review of such concepts. Their limitations and relativities may suggest that other descriptions of partnership and negotiated goal-setting, while based on respect for autonomy, reflect more modern and ideal multi-disciplinary practices. Discussion should extend beyond the 'classic' participants of patient and doctor to a more (...) realistic picture where other health carers are included. It is therefore apposite that other professional relationships are considered as they affect areas of doctors' and patients' responsibilities. Such partnership between members of the team may not be without problems and conflict, but the principle of negotiated agreements could result in more long-term harmony, and greater patient welfare. (shrink)

Nurses are increasingly realising that they can offer relevant information and participate in decision-making involving ethical issues. However, inter-professional communications are frequently inadequate, and do not permit exchange of opinions. The consequences are often frustrating and upsetting for nurses whose care is affected by others' policies. This paper explores these issues using some clinical examples.

“Informed consent” is a legal instrument that allows individuals to define their own interests and to protect their bodily privacy. In current medical practice, patients who have consented to surgery are considered to have implied consent to anaesthesia, even though anaesthesia is associated with its own particular set of risks and consequences that are quite separate from those associated with surgery. In addition, anaesthetists often perform interventions that are the only medical treatment received by a patient. Anaesthetists, therefore, should always (...) obtain separate consent for anaesthesia, and should regard the process of consent as a stimulus for active, fluid reciprocal discussion with patients about treatment options. (shrink)

Autonomy has been hailed as the foremost principle of bioethics, and yet patients’ decisions and research subjects’ voluntary participation are being subjected to frequent restrictions. It has been argued that patient care is best served by a limited form of paternalism because the doctor is better qualified to take critical decisions than the patient, who is distracted by illness. The revival of paternalism is unwarranted on two grounds: firstly, because prejudging that the sick are not fully autonomous is a biased (...) and unsubstantial view; secondly, because the technical knowledge of healthcare professionals does not include the ethical qualifications and prerogative to decide for others.Clinical research settings are even more prone to erode subjects’ autonomy than clinical settings because of the tendency and temptation to resort to such practices as shading the truth when consent to participation is sought, or waiving consent altogether when research is done in emergency settings.Instead of supporting such dubious practices with unconvincing arguments, it would seem to be the task of bioethics to insist on reinforcing autonomy. (shrink)

The contention that paternalism can be modernised in such a way as to avoid the usual criticisms is examined and dismissed. The alleged 'modernisation' consists simply in going through the motions of achieving the patient's free consent, while leaving the ultimate decision to the physician. Paternalism in this form is no better than the more old-fashioned variety, since it still takes away from patients the fundamental human right to make decisions about their own fate.

The Willowbrook Hepatitis Study is one of the best-known examples of unethical medical research, but the research has always had defenders. One of the more intriguing defenses continually used was that critics did not know the researchers on the study and, therefore, could not assess their ethics. This essay traces the appeal to the researchers’ characters across published research and archival sources from the 1960s through today. These appeals reflect the observation as old as Aristotle that one of the most (...) potent modes of persuasion is ethos or character. The specific types of character in these appeals develop out of the paternalistic nature of clinical and research practice in the mid-twentieth century. If the individual physician is the locus of medical judgment, then the physician’s character becomes a key concern for bioethics. These appeals still appear and have implications for bioethics in the present day. (shrink)

The present article proceeds from the observation that the therapeutic relationship is basically unequal. This inequality essentially concerns the respective situation of the patient and his or her doctor vis-à-vis medical knowledge. A strict professionalism guarantees that this inequality remains factual and without essential value. Yet, if both partners unreflectively allow affectivity excessively to intrude into their relationship, their behaviour may then be inspired by subconscious, rather than rational, motives. In that case, the unverifiable allegations of philanthropy or paternalism may (...) be used to rationalise a kind of 'medical sadism' which attempts to justify the will to humiliate the patient by means of the constraints inherent in medical care. The concept of ethical form is introduced as a non-verbal criterion of ethical reliability. It is mainly a way of training the will through the application of rationally justified rules of behaviour. In this context, it is suggested that an effort to remain constantly within the limits of professionalism represents a method of training for the achievement of some degree of ethical credibility in the therapeutic relationship. In the long term, such abstinence could constitute a sort of catharsis, and thereby help to reveal the non-rational motives in medical behaviour. Contrary to the belief prevailing in modern society, the established limits of medical knowledge are not so broad. The application of these limits would probably be the best method of preventing emotions from interfering undesirably in the therapeutic relationship. (shrink)