ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2016
The Porosity of Autonomy: Social and Biological Constitution of the Patient in Biomedicine.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' ethical responsibilities in relation to the climate and further environmental crises: a review of academic publications.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Review
- Autonomy support in telehealth: an evolutionary concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Doing ethics with microbes: toward a queer feminist posthuman framework for bioethics.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Postpartum Maternal Tethering: A Bioethics of Early Motherhood.International journal of feminist approaches to bioethics · 2021Article
- Rethinking the Importance of the Individual within a Community of Data.The Hastings Center report · 2020Article
- Does clinical ethics need a Land Ethic?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- "Ultimately, mom has the call": Viewing clinical trial decision making among patients with ovarian cancer through the lens of relational autonomy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Microbes and Medical Decisions.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nature and role of the patient in biomedicine comprise issues central to bioethical inquiry. Given its developmental history grounded firmly in a backlash against 20th-century cases of egregious human subjects abuse, contemporary medical bioethics has come to rely on a fundamental assumption: the unit of care (and the unit of value) is the autonomous self-directing patient. In this article we examine first the structure of the feminist social critique of autonomy. Then we show that a parallel argument can be made against relational autonomy as well, demonstrating how this second concept of autonomy fails to take sufficiently into account an array of biological determinants, particularly those from microbial biology. Finally, in light of this biological critique, we question whether or to what extent any relevant and meaningful view of autonomy can be recovered in the contemporary landscape of bioethics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26832092What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.