Objective: To examine the ethical principle of respect for autonomy within the context of neurological rehabilitation.
Discussion: The nature of the principle of respect for autonomy is examined, and specific difficulties to which it may give rise in this area of practice are identified. These concern difficulties of communication with neurologically impaired patients, issues of competence related to patient decision-making, problems of consensus between patient and professional, and the role of the patient's family in the rehabilitation process.
Conclusion: A number of strategies, based on a client-centred model of practice, are suggested which may counteract these difficulties and assist in respecting the patient's autonomy to the appropriate degree, while seeking to attain high-quality clinical outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Haas J, Mackenzie CA. The role of ethics in rehabilitation medicine: introduction to a series. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74(suppl): S3–S6.
2.
Scofield GR. Ethical considerations in rehabilitation medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 341–346.
3.
Nicholson RH. Limitations of the four principles. In: Gillon R, Lloyd A eds. Principles of health care ethics. Chichester: John Wiley, 1994: 267–275.
4.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
5.
Gillon R. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ1994; 309: 184–188.
6.
Gillon R, Lloyd A (eds) Principles of health care ethics. Chichester: John Wiley, 1994.
7.
Gillon R. Autonomy and the principle of respect for autonomy. BMJ1985; 290: 1806–1808.
8.
Sim J. Ethical issues in the management of persistent vegetative state. Physiother Res Int1997; 2: 7–11.
9.
British Medical Association. Medical ethics today: its practice and philosophy. London: British Medical Journal, 1993.
Bradshaw JL, Mattingly JB. Clinical neuropsychology: behavioral and brain science. New York: Academic Press, 1995.
15.
Van Balen HGG, Mulder Th. Beyond the stereotype: an epidemiological study on the long-term sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 259–266.
16.
Skilbeck C. Neuropsychological assessment in stroke. In: Crawford JR, Parker DM, McKinlay WW eds. A handbook of neuropsychological assessment. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992: 339–361.
17.
Worthington A. Psychological aspects of motor neuron disease: a review. Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 185–194.
18.
Robinson I. Multiple sclerosis. London: Routledge, 1988.
19.
Haas J. Ethical considerations of goal setting for patient care in rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74(suppl): S16–S20.
20.
Childress JF. Who should decide? paternalism in health care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
21.
Dworkin G. Paternalism. Monist1972; 56: 64–68.
22.
Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. For the patient's good: the restoration of beneficence in health care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
23.
Caplan AL. Informed consent and provider-patient relationships in rehabilitation medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1988; 69: 312–317.
24.
Venesy BA. A clinician's guide to decision making capacity and ethically sound medical decisions. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1994; 73: 219–226.
25.
Buchanan AE, Brock DW. Deciding for others: the ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989
26.
French S. The disabled role. In: French S ed. On equal terms: working with disabled people. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994: 47–60.
27.
Purtilo RB, Meier RH. Regulatory constraints and patient empowerment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1995; 74(suppl): S21–S24.
28.
Morris J. Prejudice. In: French S ed. On equal terms: working with disabled people. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994: 61–67.
29.
Teichman J. Social ethics: a student's guide. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
30.
Bach JR, Barnett V. Ethical considerations in the management of individuals with severe neuromuscular disorders. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1994; 73: 134–140.
31.
Beck P. Informed consent. In: Evans D ed. Why should we care?Houndmills: Macmillan, 1990: 107–115.
32.
Mitchley N, Gray JM, Pentland B. Burden and coping among the relatives and carers of brain injured survivors. Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 3–8.
33.
Telford R, Wright JC. Long-term consequences of minor head injury on family members. Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 255–258.
34.
Tyerman A. The social context. In: Rose FD, Johnson DA eds. Brain injury and after: towards improved outcome. Chichester: John Wiley, 1996: 97–117.
35.
Wear S. Informed consent: patient autonomy and physician beneficence within clinical medicine. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1993.
36.
McGrath JR, Davis AM. Rehabilitation: where are we going and how do we get there?Clin Rehabil1992; 6: 225–235.
37.
Davis A, Davis S, Moss N et al. First steps towards an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil1992; 6: 237–244.
38.
Hopkins A, Gabbay J, Neuberger J. Role of users of health care in achieving a quality service. Qual Health Care1994; 3: 203–209.
39.
Law M, Baptiste S, Mills J. Client-centred practice: what does it mean and does it make a difference?Can J Occup Ther1995; 62: 250–257.
40.
Horn S. Towards a therapeutic alliance model of rehabilitation. In: Wilson BA, McLellan DL eds. Rehabilitation studies handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997: 75–93.
41.
Purtilo RB. Ethical issues in teamwork: the context of rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1988; 69: 318–322.
42.
Caplan AL, Callahan D, Haas J. Ethical and policy issues in rehabilitation medicine. Hastings Center Rep1987; 17(4, suppl): 1–20.
43.
Kuczewski MG. Reconceiving the family: the process of consent in medical decisionmaking. Hastings Center Rep1996; 26(2): 30–37.
44.
Gates B. Advocacy: a nurses' guide. London: Scutari Press, 1994.
45.
Sim J. Ethical decision-making in therapy practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997.
46.
McGrath JR, Marks JA, Davis AM. Towards interdisciplinary rehabilitation: further developments at Rivermead Rehabilitation Centre. Clin Rehabil1995; 9: 320–326.
