In contemporary liberal ethics patient autonomy is often interpreted as the right to self-determination: when it comes to treatment decisions, the patient is given the right to give or withhold informed consent. This paper joins in the philosophical and ethical criticism of the liberal interpretation as it does not regard patient autonomy as a right, rule or principle, but rather as a practice. Patient autonomy, or so I will argue, is realised in the concrete activities of day-to-day health care, in (...) the material and technological context of care, in arrangements of health care institutions, in the physical training of people with disabilities, as well as in the concrete activities of care-giving. This move from conversations in the consultation room to other sites and situations in the practice of care takes seriously the empirical reality of medical care and intends to show that patient autonomy is practically realised in a much richer and more creative way than most ethical theory seems to assume. (shrink)

Goal setting is an important professional method and one of the key concepts that structure a practical field such as physical rehabilitation. However, the actual use of goals in rehabilitation practice is much less straightforward than the general acceptance of the method suggests as goals are frequently unattained, modified or contested. In this paper, I will argue that the difficulties of goal setting in day-to-day medical practice can be understood by unravelling the normative assumptions of goal setting, in this case (...) three different tensions that come along with it. First, goals are developed for a future state that may require activities that clash with necessities of the present situation. Second, professionals in clinical rehabilitation centres elaborate goals for an environment that differs in terms of spatial and social characteristics from the environment in the centre, where people train for the accomplishment of goals. Finally, goal setting requires active patient participation and individual control that sometimes appears impossible, unrealistic, and undesirable. I will describe how professionals deal with these tensions in a creative and dynamic way. With my articulation of the assumptions of goal setting, I hope to contribute to the self-reflection of rehabilitation practitioners as well as to theoretical discussions of goal setting in contexts other than rehabilitation. (shrink)

By now, the laboratory tradition, crafting transportable knowledge that allows for comparison, has been amply studied. However, other knowledge traditions, notably that of the clinic, deserve further articulation. The authors contribute to this by unraveling some specificities of rehabilitation practice. How do laboratory and clinical traditions in rehabilitation relate to independence? The first seeks to quantify people's independence; the latter attends to qualitatively different ways of being independent. While measuring independence is a matter of aggregating scores on a priori established (...) dimensions, clinical rehabilitation concerns coordinating different ways of being independent. While independence scales map a linear development in time, rehabilitation participants juggle with time, including uncertain futures in their present. In clinical practice, then, independence is neither a single, coherent, fact nor a clear-cut, stable goal. Instead, professionals as well as patients work by creatively doctoring with the large variety of elements that are relevant to daily life with long-term disabilities. (shrink)