Purpose:We researched the value of autonomy-related factors (being true to oneself, obeying medical advice, being unquestioned, deliberating, being free) during surgical decision making. Our study also investigated goal-based disagreements between patients and surgeons - and the impact on autonomy if surgeons challenged their treatment decisions. We specifically examined if the impact varied by the form that the challenge took. Methodology:We made 2 vignettes where patients chose a treatment goal that their surgeon disagreed with. Two challenges were presented. In one, the surgeon challenged patient values (e.g you should aim for a longer life over having children). In the other, the surgeon focused on medical facts only. 300 participants were recruited. A 6-point Likert scale was used for the responses. Proportion analysis and ANOVA testing were conducted. Results:Participants agreed that patients should think deeply and should make their decision freely. They did not agree that patients should be able to make decisions independently. Participants who agreed that patients should follow their surgeon’s advice had disagreed that they should remain true to themselves - and vice versa. There were no substantial differences between the two challenge types. In both scenarios, patients were believed to be encouraged to deliberate deeper. They were not deemed to be prevented from being true to themselves or from making a decision freely. However, in both cases, participants agreed that patients may follow their doctor’s advice despite not agreeing with it. Conclusion:In surgical treatment decision making, the public supports the practice of surgeons debating patient values and does not view this as an affront to their autonomy.