End-of-life ethics
Is end-of-life autonomy only an isolated choice?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
The authors treat respect for autonomy as central at the end of life but argue decisions are better understood relationally, in clinical context, not as isolated characteristics of a choice.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Autonomy at the end of life is exercised with, and through, other people and legal systems.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan and England regulate forgoing life-sustaining treatment differently, including the role given to family; relational-autonomy authors argue end-of-life choices are better understood in relationships and clinical context than as isolated choices.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Relational-autonomy authors keep patient autonomy central, while comparative and Japanese LVAD analyses show legal systems where family is the decision site or where refusing treatment lacks clear legal protection.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Applied to autonomy, the method adds bodily and affective engagement to the deliberative picture. One paper argues that the Mental Capacity Act's understand-retain-use-weigh test omits affective and bodily intentional capacities that are necessary components of autonomy, not extras; another argues that Beauchamp and Childress's account of autonomy as a property of decisions is too thin for end-of-life care, where decisions are better understood relationally and in clinical context.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Relational-autonomy authors keep patient autonomy central, while comparative and Japanese LVAD analyses show legal systems where family is the decision site or where refusing treatment lacks clear legal protection.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Other — Relational-autonomy ethics for end-of-life decisions, illustrated with a clinical vignette
- N
- Normative clinical ethics; vignette is illustrative, not a sample N
- Population
- End-of-life and palliative shared decision-making about respecting autonomy
- Outcome
- Autonomy as relational and contextual rather than an isolated property of a choice
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Is end-of-life autonomy only an isolated choice?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Key principle?
Respect for autonomy is a key principle in contemporary medical ethics [–]. The most influential account of this principle derives from Principles of Biome
EOL prominence?
end-of-life issues, respect for autonomy is probably the most prominent principle proffered in ethical debates [, ]. In discussions about euthanasia, this
Key findings
A contextualised approach is needed to meet clinical complexities. End-of-life decision-making is better understood when social relations are taken into account. Autonomy as a property of decisions (Beauchamp–Childress) is too thin.
Methodology
They start from Beauchamp and Childress, note relational autonomy’s role in palliative care and shared decision-making, present a positive account mixing ethical approaches, and use a clinical vignette (distant sister, unconscious patient) to show real-life complexity.
Limitations
This is a conceptual ethics paper, not a new hospice trial. The vignette is illustrative.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.