Abstract
Relational autonomy is a concept that describes the interdependent nature of decision making by individuals. Relational autonomy is distinct from the traditional concept of autonomy, which asserts the need for each individual to make choices based on their own values and without influence by others. We present a case in which a patient made decisions that appeared contrary to his own desires. The case raises questions about the line between appropriate and coercive family influence. We also explore the moral distress generated by the attempt to reconcile his expressed desires and the decisions he made. We propose that examining the case with a relational autonomy lens may have helped clinical staff understand his decision and thus mitigate moral distress.