The field of medical ethics has different topics which have raised debates, yet the answers are still unclear. Paternalism is an example of an area with no clear answers despite thousands of debates. The topic still brings about arguments on whether it is good or bad, and whether it should be allowed. For each of the controversial issues in medical ethics, some authors have done research and present different arguments with the aim of solving the puzzle. An example is Allan Goldman whose argument concerning medical Paternalism still invokes many arguments on the topic. According to Goldman, medical paternalism is unethical since it goes against the patient’s liberty and autonomy. As a result, Goldman claims that paternalism is not applicable in the medical area except in a few cases where pieces of evidence are overwhelming. The underlying fact that brings about the argument on medical paternalism is whether it is beneficial to the patient. In this article, the aim is to counter the Goldman’s argument on medical paternalism. The objective is to refute his argument that health and long life are normally not the patients' significant preferences when they visit a hospital.
Medical paternalism by definition is the “overriding or restricting of rights or freedoms of individuals for their good (Veatch, 2017). In the medical context, the term implies that when a patient visits a physician and ask for a medical procedure which may be detrimental to his or her health, his or her power of autonomy should be underlooked for her or his safety. Individuals such as Allan Goldman argue that medical paternalism jeopardizes the patients’ rights and freedom. According to their views, a patient has a right to autonomy. The ethical principle of autonomy claim that while in the hospital, the patient's liberty to decide his or her life needs to be respected and considered on the treatment procedure. Most medical professionals react to the power of autonomy by providing an inform consent that details the medical procedure and allows the patient to decide by consenting or refuting the consent.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Goldman also argues that human beings do not prefer health and long life alone. He claims that life is not such critical to the extent that is less preferred than freedom. He refutes the argument that doctors think that life is essential to patients by claiming that life in Intensive Care Units or a life of depression and constant pain is less valuable. Goldman’s view implies that doctors are wrong when they reason for patients since some of the patients have different values that clash with the doctors’ reasoning concerning life and freedom. It further implies that Goldman and the crew put autonomy as the priority of the patient and human beings. A goods argument concerning this issues is a case example of a machine that selects the best spouse for people. Goldman argues that even though the machine is capable of selecting the best spouse, people will always choose for themselves the spouse that suits them even in the case where the choices are far much below the ones chosen by the machine.
`There are counterarguments in support for paternalism. First, there is an argument that the patient seeks medical attention since they value their life and wants to live long. The assumption, in this case, is that people seek treatment to feel better. In this case, they may know their health conditions, yet they are not willing to share with the doctors due to ignorance or irritation motives. In this situation, the patient may face potential harm. In this case, the person is also not acting by his or her values and thus is not autonomous. It is the mandate of the doctors to prevent such harms by ensuring that the patient’s life is protected. Alternatively, a patient may demand a medical procedure that harms him or her. For instance, a patient may request the doctor to amputate his healthy hand. In such a situation, the patient risks harm and the doctor cannot justify such a procedure.
In my view, the patient autonomy does not justify that the patient should be treated as they wish. There must be limitations with regards to medical treatments for the patients. The patient cannot be given futile treatment because he or she asks for such a procedure. Also, a patient may not be treated in a manner that is outside the medical scope due to their autonomy. This would be unethical. When other theories of ethics are applicable in this case, utilitarianism supports the medical paternalism. According to utilitarianism view, the best action should result in maximum utility. There are situations where a patient suffers from a contagious disease. In case such a patient refuses treatment and is likely to infect others, the utilitarianism support that such a patient should be treated for his or her benefits, the benefits of the doctor and the entire public.
In summary, it is apparent that patients visit physicians since they value life and health, and want the doctors to help them maintain a healthy life. Though Goldman argues that paternalism denies the patient a freedom to make their choices and jeopardize their rights to autonomy, it is clear that independence should not be used as a means of allowing patients to harm themselves and risk hurting others. There must be limits in the medical arena to which a patient can be involved in medical procedures for their safety and that of the public.
References
Veatch, R. M. (2017). Prescription Paternalism: The Morality of Restricting Access to Pharmaceuticals. In Philosophical Issues in Pharmaceutics (pp. 135-152). Springer, Dordrecht.
