Patient autonomy in chronic care: solving a paradox

Abstract

Gérard Reach Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolic Diseases, Avicenne Hospital AP-HP, and EA 3412, CRNH-IdF, Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France Abstract: The application of the principle of autonomy, which is considered a cornerstone of contemporary bioethics, is sometimes in obvious contradiction with the principle of beneficence. Indeed, it may happen in chronic care that the preferences of the health care provider (HCP), who is largely focused on the prevention of long term complications of diseases, differ from those, more present oriented, preferences of the patient. The aims of this narrative review are as follows: 1) to show that the exercise of autonomy by the patient is not always possible; 2) where the latter is not possible, to examine how, in the context of the autonomy principle, someone (a HCP) can decide what is good (a treatment) for someone else (a patient) without falling into paternalism. Actually this analysis leads to a paradox: not only is the principle of beneficence sometimes conflicting with the principle of autonomy, but physician's beneficence may enter into conflict with the mere respect of the patient; and 3) to propose a solution to this paradox by revisiting the very concepts of the autonomous person, patient education, and trust in the patient–physician relationship: this article provides an ethical definition of patient education. Keywords: preference, autonomy, person, reflexivity, empathy, sympathy, patient education, trust, respect, care