Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Autonomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contemporary European Perspectives on the Ethics of End of Life Care

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 136))

Abstract

The concept of autonomy is central to many of the clinical, legal, and ethical challenges which arise in end of life care. It is therefore not surprising that this ethical concept is recognised in the law and is expressed as a right to autonomy or self-determination. Unfortunately, the rich ethical concept of autonomy is often underdeveloped in law and the limits of the concept are poorly defined. This chapter provides a brief overview of the ethical concept of autonomy and key points in its development. The chapter goes on to explore the role of autonomy at the end of life and in palliative care. In doing so, it begins to draw out the limitations of an individualistic application of autonomy. The chapter also illustrates the narrow interpretation of autonomy in the law where it can often be reduced to a right of non-interference or a requirement for informed consent. As jurisdictions increasingly utilise law to ameliorate and strengthen the provision of palliative care, it is suggested that a more nuanced understanding of autonomy must inform and be reflected in such developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Barbisan Human rights and patient rights, Chap. 2, this volume.

  2. 2.

    For further discussion of Utilitarianism and End of Life Care see Mooren and Quante Chap. 3, this volume.

  3. 3.

    For further discussion of Quality of Life measures see Mooren and Quante, Chap. 3, this volume.

  4. 4.

    For a discussion of ethics and sedation at the end of life see Holm, Chap. 17, this volume.

References

  • Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland [1993] A.C. 789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1979). Principles of biomedical ethicsOxford University Press. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, J. (1824). The life of Samuel Johnson. London: Brumby.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. (1984). Autonomy: A moral good, not a moral obsession. Hastings Center Report, 14(5), 40–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambaere, K., Bilsen, J., Cohen, J., Rietjens, J. A., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Mortier, F., & Deliens, L. (2010). Continuous deep sedation until death in Belgium: A nationwide survey. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(5), 490–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, P., Menten, J., Schotsmans, P., & Broeckaert, B. (2011). Palliative sedation, not slow euthanasia: A prospective, longitudinal study of sedation in Flemish palliative care units. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 41(1), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. (2018). Cicely Saunders: A life and legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coggon, J., & Miola, J. (2011). Autonomy, liberty, and medical decision-making. Cambridge Law Journal, 70(3), 523–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique, <<Rapport du CCNE sur le débat public concernant la fin de vie>> (21 octobre 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, E., & Higginson, I. J. (2004). Better palliative care for older people. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, A., & Beard, B. (2015). Is sedation at the end of life compatible with the principles of palliative care? End of Life Care Journal, 5(1), e000001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. (2008). End of life care strategy: Promoting high quality care for all adults at the end of life. London: Dept of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, M. (2008). The right of autonomy in Irish law. Medico-Legal Journal of Ireland, 14, 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, M. (2014). Healthcare decision-making and the law: Autonomy, capacity and the limits of liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s dominion: An argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, I., & McCarthy, J. (2016). Experiences of palliative care nurses in the utilization of palliative sedation in a hospice setting. End-of-Life Journal, 6, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2015). People in the EU: Who are we and how do we live? Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer, C. (2018). The law on assisted dying in Britain is incoherent and hypocritical. The Economist. Available at: https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/21/the-law-on-assisted-dying-in-britain-is-incoherent-and-hypocritical. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.

  • Gielen, J., Van den Branden, S., Van Iersel, T., & Broeckaert, B. (2012). Flemish palliative-care nurses’ attitudes to palliative sedation: A quantitative study. Nursing Ethics, 19, 692–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, R. (Ed.). (1995). Principles of healthcare ethics. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, R. (2003). Ethics needs principles – Four can encompass the rest – And respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 307–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanafin, P. (1997). Last rights: Death, dying and the law in Ireland. Cork: Cork University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollande, F. (2012). ‘Le Changement c’est Maintenant: Mes 60 Engagements pour la France’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, R. (2014). “I don’t need my patients’ opinion to withdraw treatment”: Patient preferences at the end-of-life and physician attitudes towards advance directives in England and France. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 17(3), 425–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, R. (2018). The ‘French exception’: The right to continuous deep sedation at the end of life. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(3), 204–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, R. (2008). Whatever you want? Beyond the patient in medical law. Health Care Analysis, 16(3), 288–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irish Association of Palliative Care. (2011). Palliative sedation. Dublin: IAPC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irish Hospice Foundation. (2010). Patient autonomy in law and practice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaasa, S., & Loge, J. H. (2003). Quality of life in palliative care: Principles and practice. Palliative Medicine, 17(1), 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1994). Ethical philosophy. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R., & O’Connor, M. (2012). Behind the rhetoric: Is palliative care equitably available for all? Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 43(1), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurance, J. (2007, February 13). Woman goes to court in historic euthanasia case. Independent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, J. (2015). Sedation of the terminally ill patient: The role of the doctrine of double effect. Medico-Legal Journal of Ireland, 21(1), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, J. (2018). Law, palliative care and dying: Legal and ethical challenges. Oxford: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London: JW Parker and Son.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics. (2015). National population projections: 2014-based statistical bulletin. Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelligrino, E. D., & Thomasma, D. C. (1988). For the patient’s good. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • R (on the Application of Burke) v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 1879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbruch, L., Payne, S., & EAPC Board of Directors. (2009). White Paper on standards and norms for hospice and palliative care in Europe: Part 1. European Journal of Palliative Care, 16(6), 278–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raus, K., Chambaere, K., & Sterckx, S. (2016). Controversies surrounding continuous deep sedation at the end of life: The parliamentary and societal debates in France. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Re, T. (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [1992] 3 WLR 782, [1992] EWCA Civ 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schotsmans, P. (2002). Palliative care: A relational approach. In H. ten Have & D. Clark (Eds.), The ethics of palliative care: European perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sepúlveda, C., Marlin, A., Yoshida, T., & Ullrich, A. (2002). Palliative care: The World Health Organization’s global perspective. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 24(2), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sicard, D. (2012, December). Penser solidairement la fin de vie – Commission de réflexion sur la fin de vie en France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Société Française d’Accompagnement et de Soins Palliatifs. (2017). Résultats Enquête loi Clayes-Leonetti. Available at: http://www.sfap.org/system/files/analyse-resultats-enque-loi-claeys-leonetti-vc-graph.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.

  • Spriggs, M. (2005). Autonomy and patients’ decisions. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2015). World population ageing report 2015 (ST/ESA/SER.A/390).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, F., Ingleton, C., Gott, M., & Gardiner, C. (2014). Autonomy and choice in palliative care: Time for a new model? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(5), 1020–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, S. (2007). Death’s dominion: Ethics at the end of life. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    John Lombard

Authors
  1. John Lombard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Lombard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Nathan Emmerich

  2. The Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Bioethics Research Programme, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

    Pierre Mallia

  3. The Institute of Ethics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Bert Gordijn

  4. Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, Neurological Institute, University of L’Aquila, Via Vetoio, L’Aquila, Italy

    Francesca Pistoia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lombard, J. (2020). Autonomy. In: Emmerich, N., Mallia, P., Gordijn, B., Pistoia, F. (eds) Contemporary European Perspectives on the Ethics of End of Life Care. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 136. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40033-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation