Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41(03): 212-220
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709203
Invited Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Moral Features of the Therapeutic Relationship with Adults: Dignity, Trust, Autonomy, Vulnerability, and Resilience

Jennifer Horner
1   College of Health Sciences and Professions, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 June 2020 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Moral Features of the Therapeutic Relationship with Adults: Dignity, Trust, Autonomy, Vulnerability, and ResilienceSemin Speech Lang 2020; 41(03): 218-218
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718949

Abstract

Using dignity as a foundational value of morality, this article defines trust, autonomy, vulnerability, and resilience in relational terms. A fictional narrative illustrates these attributes as well as solidarity and care, two core tenets of relational ethics. Medicine and rehabilitation are described as moral enterprises with respect for persons at the core of our professional obligations to patients—namely, duties of care, trustworthiness, and loyalty. Clinically, promoting autonomy, decreasing vulnerability, and fostering resilience are encouraged, with particular emphasis on avoiding words or actions (or inactions) that could cause patients to feel discouraged or depersonalized. In conclusion, the purpose of our work with persons with aphasia and other communication disorders is to help them live their lives as fully as possible, despite their life-changing losses. Viewing our therapeutic relationships with them in relational moral terms can enhance our work.

Keywords

ethics - morality - dignity - therapeutic relationship - relational ethics
 

  • References

  • 1 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Code of Ethics [Ethics]; 2016 . Available at: www.asha.org/policy . Accessed March 15, 2020
    PubMed
  • 2 Rogers C. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In: Koch S. , ed. Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1959. [Cited by: McLeod SA. Carl Rogers; 2014. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from the Simply Psychology website: www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html ]
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Byng S, Cairns D, Duchan J. Values in practice and practising values. J Commun Disord 2002; 35 (02) 89-106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 LaPointe LL. Quality of life with aphasia. Semin Speech Lang 1999; 20 (01) 5-16 , quiz 16–17
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sarno MT. Aphasia rehabilitation: psychosocial and ethical considerations. Aphasiology 1993; 7 (04) 321-334
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Sarno MT. Aphasia therapies: historical perspectives and moral imperatives. In: Duchan JF, Byng S. , eds. Challenging Aphasia Therapies: Broadening the Discourse and Extending the Boundaries. New York, NY: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis; 2004: 19-32
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Worrall L. Professionalism and functional outcomes. J Commun Disord 2006; 39 (04) 320-327
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Barsky AJ. The iatrogenic potential of the physician's words. JAMA 2017; 318 (24) 2425-2426
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Berg K, Askim T, Rise MB. What do speech-language pathologist describe as most important when trying to achieve client participation during aphasia rehabilitation? A qualitative focus group interview study. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 18: 1-11
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Brown K, Worrall LE, Davidson B, Howe T. Living successfully with aphasia: a qualitative meta-analysis of the perspectives of individuals with aphasia, family members, and speech-language pathologists. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; 14 (02) 141-155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Dalemans RJP, de Witte L, Wade D, van den Heuvel W. Social participation through the eyes of people with aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2010; 45 (05) 537-550
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Horner Catt J. The language of ethics in clinical practice. J Med Speech-Lang Pathol 2000; 8 (03) 137-153
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Onishi SL, Hebert RS. The Stanford Prison experiment: implications for the care of the “difficult” patient. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2016; 33 (01) 64-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Parr S, Byng S, Gilpin S. Talking About Aphasia: Living with Loss of Language After Stroke. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1997
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Patel JJ. The things we say. JAMA 2018; 319 (04) 341-342
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Roberts JL, Weeks E. Stigmatizing the unhealthy. J Law Med Ethics 2017; 45: 484-491
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Haque OS, Waytz A. Dehumanization in medicine: causes, solutions, and functions. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012; 7 (02) 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lysaught MT. Respect: or, how respect for persons became respect for autonomy. J Med Philos 2004; 29 (06) 665-680
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Jennings B. Relational ethics for public health: interpreting solidarity and care. Health Care Anal 2019; 27 (01) 4-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Gilligan C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rendtorff JD. Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability--towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw. Med Health Care Philos 2002; 5 (03) 235-244
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kant I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (rev.). [Gregor M, Timmermann J, trans, ed.] Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Respect. Stanford Encyclopedia Philos. February 18, 2018. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/respect . Accessed January 21, 2020
    PubMed
  • 24 Korsgaard CM. Introduction. In: Kant I. , ed. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (rev.). [Gregor M, Timmermann J. trans, ed.] Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1785. /2012: ix-xxxvi
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Byers P. Dependence and a Kantian conception of dignity as a value. Theor Med Bioeth 2016; 37 (01) 61-69
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Rodríguez-Prat A, Monforte-Royo C, Porta-Sales J, Escribano X, Balaguer A. Patient perspectives of dignity, autonomy and control at the end of life: systematic review and meta-ethnography. PLoS One 2016; 11 (03) e0151435
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Frank AW. First-person microethics: deriving principles from below. Hastings Cent Rep 1998; 28 (04) 37-42
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Truog RD, Brown SD, Browning D. , et al. Microethics: the ethics of everyday clinical practice. Hastings Cent Rep 2015; 45 (01) 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Tauber AI. From the self to the other: building a philosophy of medicine. In: Grodin MA. , ed. Meta Medical Ethics: The Philosophical Foundations of Bioethics. Kluwer Academic Pub; 1995: 157-196
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Pellegrino ED. Toward a reconstruction of medical morality. Am J Bioeth 2006; 6 (02) 65-71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Thomasma DC. The vulnerability of the sick. Bioeth Forum 2000; 16 (02) 5-12
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Wolfensberger M, Wrigley A. Trust in Medicine: Its Nature, Justification, Significance, and Decline. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2019
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Barnard D. Vulnerability and trustworthiness. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2016; 25 (02) 288-300
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Nys T. Autonomy, trust, and respect. J Med Philos 2016; 41 (01) 10-24
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Jones K. But I was counting on you!. In: Faulkner P, Simpson T. , eds. The Philosophy of Trust. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2017: 90-108
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. The Virtues in Medical Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Baier A. The possibility of sustaining trust. In: Pauer-Studer H. , ed. Norms, Values, and Society. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994: 245-259 . [Cited by: Wolfensberger M, Wrigley A. Trust in Medicine: Its Nature, Justification, Significance, and Decline. New York, NY; 2019;164]
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research; 1979 . Available at: hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/Belmont-report/index.html. Accessed March 26, 2020
    PubMed
  • 39 Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 Carrese JA. Refusal of care: patients' well-being and physicians' ethical obligations: “but doctor, I want to go home”. JAMA 2006; 296 (06) 691-695
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Carling-Rowland A, Black S, McDonald L, Kagan A. Increasing access to fair capacity evaluation for discharge decision-making for people with aphasia: a randomized controlled trial. Aphasiol 2014; 28 (06) 750-765
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Ferguson A, Duffield G, Worrall L. Legal decision-making by people with aphasia: critical incidents for speech pathologists. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2010; 45 (02) 244-258
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Horner J, Modayil M, Chapman LR, Dinh A. Consent, refusal, and waivers in patient-centered dysphagia care: using law, ethics, and evidence to guide clinical practice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2016; 25 (04) 453-469
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Cassell EJ. Life as a work of art. Hastings Cent Rep 1984; 14 (05) 35-37
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Jennings B. Reconceptualizing autonomy: a relational turn in bioethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2016; 46 (03) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Mackenzie C. The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability. In: Mackenzie C, Rogers W, Dodds S. , eds. Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014: 33-59
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 47 Fineman MA. The vulnerable subject: anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale J Law Fem 2008; 1 (20) 1-23
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Danis M, Patrick DL. Health policy, vulnerability, and vulnerable populations. In: Danis M, Clancy C, Churchill LR. , eds., Ethical Dimensions of Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002: 310-334
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 49 Hughes V. Stress: the roots of resilience. Nature 2012; 490 (7419): 165-167
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Lotz M. Vulnerability and resilience: a critical nexus. Theor Med Bioeth 2016; 37 (01) 45-59
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Haglund ME, Nestadt PS, Cooper NS, Southwick SM, Charney DS. Psychobiological mechanisms of resilience: relevance to prevention and treatment of stress-related psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol 2007; 19 (03) 889-920
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Robertson I, Cooper CL. Resilience. [Editorial] Stress Health 2013; 29 (03) 175-176
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Musser B, Wilkinson J, Gilbert T, Bokhour BG. Changes in identity after aphasic stroke: implications for primary care. Int J Family Med 2015; 2015: 970345
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Jennings B. Healing the self. The moral meaning of relationships in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 72 (06) 401-404
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Lieberman A. Counseling issues: addressing behavioral and emotional considerations in the treatment of communication disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2018; 27 (01) 13-23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Phillips DT, Mendel LL. Counseling training in communication disorders: a survey of clinical fellows. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord 2008; 35: 44-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Campelia G, Tate T. Empathetic practice: the struggle and virtue of empathizing with a patient's suffering. Hastings Cent Rep 2019; 49 (02) 17-25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar