In Defense of Patient Autonomy in Kidney Failure Care When Treatment Choices Are Limited

Respect for patient autonomy is a primary ethical obligation of health care providers. In kidney health care, clinical practice recommendations commonly include strategies to promote shared decision making with patients and their families about treatment options to promote patient autonomy and improve patient outcomes. However, for many people with kidney failure, treatment options may be unavailable or inaccessible. In these circumstances some clinicians may act paternalistically and withhold information from patients because of a fear of causing harm or because clinicians believe that patient autonomy is not a relevant consideration. In this article, we reflect on the concept of autonomy in the context of clinical decision making in kidney failure care, with particular attention to resource-constrained settings and the disclosure of information to patients for whom treatment may be inaccessible. We examine and address key concerns that patient autonomy may be impossible, irrelevant, or harmful in the context of limited treatment choices, and discuss factors that may influence paternalistic practices in such settings. We conclude that respect for autonomy is intrinsically and instrumentally valuable, and argue that in neglecting patient autonomy in resource-constrained settings, clinicians may exacerbate and entrench the structural inequalities and health inequities they are committed to addressing. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

Respecting patient autonomy is a primary ethical obligation for healthcare providers, but in kidney healthcare, patients may face unavailable or inaccessible treatment options. Some clinicians may act paternalistically by withholding information due to fear of harm or belief that autonomy is not relevant.