Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T06:17:18.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Autonomy to the Person Coping With Illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

David C. Thomasma
David C. Thomasma
Affiliation:
Fr. Michael I. English, S.J., Professor of Medical Ethics and Director of the Medical Humanities Program at Loyola University Chicago Medical Center and the Director of the International Bioethics Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let us look at autonomy in a new way. Autonomy has a richly deserved place of honor in bioethlcs. It has led the set of principles that formed the basis of the discipline since the beginning. It is the leading principle In what is now regularly called “the Georgetown Mantra,” a phrase suggested by one of the first philosophers ever to be hired In a medical school, K. Danner Clouser. The phrase applies to the principled approach of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. This kind of bioethics was developed by scholars like Beauchamp and Childress, Veatch, and Engelhardt, during their association with Georgetown University.

Type
Special Section: Beyond Autonomy
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Winter 1995 , pp. 12 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Clouser, KD, Gert, B. A critique of principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1990;15:219–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Gunn, AE. Risk-benefit ratio: the soft underbelly of patient autonomy, Issues in Law and Medicine 1991;7(2):139–54.Google ScholarPubMed

3. Thomasma, DC. Models of the doctor-patient relationship and the ethics committee: part one, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1992;1(1): 11–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Pellegrino, ED, Thomasma, DCA Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.Google Scholar

5. Thomasma, DC. Limitations of the autonomy model for the doctor-patient relationship, The Pharos 1983;46 (Spring):2–5.Google ScholarPubMed

6. Thomasma, DC. Philosophy of medicine in Europe: challenges for the future, Theoretical Medicine 1985;6:115–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Thomasma, DC. Philosophy of medicine in the U.S.A., [editorial]. Theoretical Medicine 1985;6:239–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Thomasma, DC, Pellegrino, ED. Challenges for a philosophy of medicine of the future: a response to fellow philosophers in The Netherlands, Theoretical Medicine 1987;8:187–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Pellegrino, ED, Thomasma, DC. The conflict between autonomy and beneficence in medical ethics: proposal for a resolution, The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 1987;3:23–46.Google ScholarPubMed

10. Engelhardt, HT Jr. The Foundations of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google ScholarPubMed

11. Loewy, EH. Suffering and the Beneficent Community: Beyond Libertarianism. Albany, New York: SUNY Press, 1991.Google Scholar

12. Hastings Center Report 1993;23.

13. Graber, GC, Thomasma, DC. Theory and Practice in Medical Ethics. New York: Continuum, 1988.Google Scholar

14. Pellegrino, ED, Thomasma, DC. For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

15. Loewy, E. The restoration of beneficence, The Hastings Center Report 1989;19:42–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Gomez, C. Regulating Death: Euthanasia and the Case of The Netherlands. New York: Free Press, 1991.Google Scholar

17. Bergsma, J, Thomasma, DC. Autonomy and Health Care. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar

18. Retera, G. Autonomie en Kankerprocessen (Report: Autonomy and Cancer). Utrecht Rep. Inst. Med. Psychology, 1986.Google Scholar

19. Seeman, M, Seeman, TE. Health behavior and personal autonomy, Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1983;24:144–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. See note 18. Retera, . 1986.Google Scholar

21. Bergsma, J. Somatopsychologie (Somatopsychology). Lochem: De Tijdstroom, 1977.Google Scholar

22. Glaser, BG, Strauss, AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.Google Scholar See also Wester, F. De Gefundeerde Theorie Benadering; een Strategic voor Kwalitatief Onderzoek [Dissertation]. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University; 1984.Google Scholar

23. Muller, J, Koenig, B. On the boundary of life and death: the definition of dying by medical residents. In: Lock, M, Gordon, D, eds. Biomedicine Examined. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988:351–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Brody, H. Placebos and the Philosophy of Medicine: Clinical, Conceptual, and Ethical Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar

25. Rorty, R. Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989:182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. See note 25. Rorty, , 1989:153–4.Google Scholar

27. Pellegrino, ED, Thomasma, DC. A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.Google Scholar

28. Kappell, L. Psychic geography in Gravity's Rainbow, Contemporary Literature 1980;21:251.Google Scholar

29. Brody, H. The Healer's Power. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

30. Brock, D. The ideal of shared decision making between physicians and patients, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1991;1(1):28–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar