Cruel Choices: Autonomy and Critical Care Decision-Making

Christopher Meyers

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    33 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Although autonomy is clearly still the paradigm in bioethics, there is increasing concern over its value and feasibility. In agreeing with those concerns, I argue that autonomy is not just a status, but a skill, one that must be developed and maintained. I also argue that nearly all healthcare interactions do anything but promote such decisional skills, since they rely upon assent, rather than upon genuinely autonomous consent. Thus, throughout most of their medical lives, patients are socialised to be heteronomous, rather than autonomous. Yet, at the worst possible time ' critical care decision-making ' when life and death consequences are attached to the choices, the paradigm shifts and real consent is sought, even demanded, thereby making an often traumatic situation even harder. I go on, though, to also reject paternalistic models of beneficence as an alternative. Rather, I conclude that the problem is so fundamental in healthcare that a genuine solution would require a radical restructuring. I recommend steps that can be taken in the interim to improve the situation and to move toward such a restructuring.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)104-119
    Number of pages16
    JournalBioethics
    Volume18
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2004

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cruel Choices: Autonomy and Critical Care Decision-Making'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this