Reconsidering Autonomy: Asian Americans’ Use of Relational Autonomy in Organ Donation Decisions

Abstract Background As cultural contexts have gained increasing relevance in medical decision-making, the current mainstream definition of autonomy is insufficient. A viable alternative framework, relational autonomy posits that agents’ actions are influenced by and embedded in society and culture rather than occurring in isolation. To test the concept’s applicability, we examine whether Asian Americans in the study’s sample operationalize relational autonomy as a decisional approach in hypothetical scenarios about organ donation, a practice for which there is considerably lower enthusiasm compared to other racial groups in the US. Methods A national sample of Asian American adults were recruited from Qualtrics research panel. Participants completed a Think-Aloud interview containing scenarios in which they decide whether or not to: 1) become a registered donor at the motor vehicle department; 2) authorize organ donation for a close relative who unexpectedly died. The interview first elicited candid reactions to the scenarios, followed by probing participants’ rationale of their initial responses. Participants’ final decision to each scenario (whether or not to register; whether or not consent to surrogate authorization), as well as participants’ decisional approaches (individualistic vs relational) were coded using the constant comparison method. Results The sample (n = 40) mirrored the largest proportions of Asian Americans in the US; the plurality identified as Chinese (35%), Filipino (27.5%) and Indian (25%). In response to the organ donor registration prompt, a majority of respondents (57.5%) expressed they would employ the mainstream decisional approach of individualistic autonomy, and 42.5% would make the decision with a relational approach. In contrast, when responding to the surrogate authorization prompt, the majority (77.5%) described a relational approach when making the decision, to preserve familial harmony and honor their cultural heritage. Conclusions Use of individualistic and relational autonomy frameworks are situational for some individuals. Participants acknowledged the impact of personal, cultural, and societal elements on their decisional approach. The concept of relational autonomy has utility through its versatility in complex decision-making events and by accounting for multiple stakeholders without privileging the autonomy of a single decision-maker over others. Clinical trial number: not applicable