Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-ndqjc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-20T17:50:07.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relational Autonomy and Multiculturalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2010


The principle of autonomy, through various court rulings, gradually became part of medical practice and tradition in the second half of the 1800s, notably when the emergence of surgical anaesthesia began to raise serious questions regarding informed consent. In fact, surgical anaesthesia was initially used not only to avoid pain but also to combat patients’ resistance to operations.

Dissecting Bioethics
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)


1. See Ackerman, TH. Choosing between Nuremberg and the National Commission: Balancing of moral principles in clinical research. In: Vanderpool, HY, ed. The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century. Baltimore, MD: Frederick Press; 1996Google Scholar.

2. In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, Aphrodite tells Anchises the story of Eos and Tithonos. See Homer. Hymn to Aphrodite, verses 218–240, translated by G. Nagy; available at (last accessed 30 June 2009).

3. “Eos syndrome” has been defined as the capability of high-technology medicine to alter the dying process and prolong low-quality life. See Zamperetti N, Bellomo R, Dan M, Ronco C. Ethical, political, and social aspects of high-technology medicine: Eos and care. Intensive Care Medicine 2006;32:830–5.

4. Piaget, J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Routledge; 1999Google Scholar.

5. See Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In: Goslin, D, ed. Handbook of Socialization. Theory and Research. Chicago: Guilford Press; 2006 [1969]:347–480Google Scholar; Kohlberg, L. Essays on Moral Development (2 vol.). San Francisco: Harper & Row; 1981–4Google Scholar.

6. Kant, I. Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? [Answering the question: What is enlightenment?]. Berlinische Monatsschrift [Berlin Monthly]; December 1789Google Scholar.

7. See, for example, Sandel, M. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982Google Scholar; Kymlicka, W. Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1990Google Scholar; Benhabib, S. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. New York: Routledge; 1992Google Scholar.

8. For a radical critique of autonomy as a sex-based concept, see Christman, J. Feminism and autonomy. In: Bushnell, D, ed. Nagging Questions: Feminist Ethics in Everyday Life. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 1995Google Scholar; Hoagland, SL. Lesbian Ethics: Toward New Value. California: Institute of Lesbian Studies; 1998Google Scholar.

9. See Code, L. Second persons. In: Code, L. What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1991Google Scholar; Baier, A. Cartesian persons. In: Postures of the Mind: Essays on Mind and Morals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1985Google Scholar; Jaggar, A. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, NY: Rowman & Allanheld; 1983Google Scholar.

10. See Nedelsky, J. Re-conceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts and possibilities. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1989;1:7–36Google Scholar; Nedelsky, J. Law, boundaries and the bounded self. Representations 1990;30:162–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nedelsky, J. Re-conceiving rights as relationship. Review of Constitutional Studies 1993;1:1–26Google Scholar; Nedelsky, J. Meditations on embodied autonomy. Graven Images 1995;2:159–70Google Scholar.

11. See Chodorow, N. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1978Google Scholar.

12. Held, V. Feminist Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1993Google Scholar.

13. Keller, EF. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1985Google Scholar.

14. See Mackenzie, C, Stoljar, N. Autonomy refigured. In: Mackenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy. Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999:3–31Google Scholar.

15. For an interesting exposition of different conceptions of relational autonomy, see Friedman, M. Autonomy and social relationships: Rethinking the feminist critique. In: Tietjens Meyers, D, ed. Feminists Rethink the Self. Boulder, CO: Westview; 1997:55–8Google Scholar.

16. Blackhall, L, Murphy, ST, Frank, G, Michel, V, Azen, S. Ethnicity and attitudes towards patient autonomy. JAMA 1995;274:820–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carrese, J, Rhodes, L. Western bioethics on the Navajo reservation: Benefit or harm. JAMA 1995;274:826–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

17. Long, SO, Long, BD. Curable cancers and fatal ulcers: Attitudes toward cancer in Japan. Social Science and Medicine 1982;24:2101–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Hattori, H, Salzberg, SM, Kiang, WP, Fujimiya, T, Tejima, Y, Furuno, J. The patient’s rights to information in Japan: Legal rules and doctor’s opinions. Social Science and Medicine 1991;32:1007–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Ruhnke, GW, Wilson, SR, Akamatsu, T, Kinoue, T, Takashima, Y, Goldstein, MK, et al. . Ethical decision making and patient autonomy. A comparison of physicians and patients in Japan and the United States. Chest 2000;118:1172–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

20. Nakata, Y, Goto, T, Morita, S. Serving the emperor without asking: Critical care ethics in Japan. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1998;23:610CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

21. Ohnuki-Tierney, E. My very own illness: Illness in a dualistic world view. In: Ohnuki-Tierney, E, ed. Illness and Culture in Contemporary Japan—An Anthropological View. Madison, WI: Cambridge University Press; 1984:51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Fetters, MD. The family in medical decision making: Japanese perspectives. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 1998,9:143Google ScholarPubMed.

23. Fan, R. Critical care ethics in Asia: Global or local? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1998,6:556–7Google ScholarPubMed; see also Fan, R. Self-determination vs family-determination: Two incommensurable principles of autonomy. Bioethics 1997;11:309–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

24. Qiu, RZ. The tension between biomedical technology and Confucian values. In: Tao, JLP-W, ed. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the (Im)possibility of Global Bioethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:77Google Scholar.

25. Xinhe, H. On relational paradigm in bioethics. In: Tao, JLP-W, ed. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the (Im)possibility of Global Bioethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:97Google Scholar.

26. See note 25, Xinhe 2002:97.

27. See note 25, Xinhe 2002:97.

28. ChengF, Ip M F, Ip M, Wong, KK, Yan, WW. Critical care ethics in Hong Kong: Cross-cultural conflicts as East meets West. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1998;23: 616–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Moller-Okin, S. Is multiculturalism bad for women? In: Cohen, J, Howard, M, Nussbaum, MC, eds. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1999Google Scholar.

30. Moller-Okin, S. “Political liberalism,” justice and gender. Ethics 1994;105:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. See note 25, Fetters 2002:142.

32. See note 25, Fetters 2002:142.

33. Will Kymlicka and Jürgen Habermas are among the upholders of liberal multiculturalism (see Kymlicka, W. Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989Google Scholar; Habermas, J. Struggles for recognition in the democratic constitutional state. In: Gutmann, A, ed. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1994Google Scholar). Jurgen Habermas’s proposal of multiculturalism pursuing a “universalism sensible to differences” is also extremely interesting.