Test Item #2: The definition of the word autonomy means to be self-determined or to have free will. Patients, who are competent and are of an appropriate age, all have the ability to be autonomous when it comes to making decisions about their healthcare. In the debate between Dax Cowart and Robert Burt, each of these men agree that competent patients have this privilege; however, they do not agree on when the patient has the right to use this privilege. Cowart’s argument favors healthcare professionals allowing patients to use their free will at any given moment regardless of the positive or negative outcomes of his or her decision. I agree with Cowart’s argument pertaining to the rights of patients. Cowart discusses how patient autonomy
…show more content…
Healthcare professionals are required to take an oath that states “do no harm.” This oath is the epitome of the principle of nonmaleficince. Healthcare professionals did not want to cause avoidable damage to Cowart; therefore, they used this principle to support their reasoning. In this particular incident, this oath was manipulated also into supporting the principle of paternalism, which justified the constant unwanted treatments given to Cowart. According to Gerald Dworkin’s piece, “… In ‘pure’ paternalism, the class of persons whose freedom is restricted is identical with the class of persons whose benefit is intended to be promoted by such restrictions” (citation). Dworkin’s piece supports what the healthcare professionals did by explaining that rights can be taken from a patient if the treatment with better his or her life regardless of his or her desires. In contrast, Cowart did not agree with his rights being taken away from him. In his argument, he states that “the right to control your own body is a right you’re born with, not something that you have to ask anyone else for…” (citation).Cowart feels that the rights of the patient come above all ideas thag.t a healthcare professional generates. If a patient refuses treatment, then it is the patient’s freedom of choice to do so. Although no one may
Healthcare professionals are required to take an oath that states “do no harm.” This oath is the epitome of the principle of nonmaleficince. Healthcare professionals did not want to cause avoidable damage to Cowart; therefore, they used this principle to support their reasoning. In this particular incident, this oath was manipulated also into supporting the principle of paternalism, which justified the constant unwanted treatments given to Cowart. According to Gerald Dworkin’s piece, “… In ‘pure’ paternalism, the class of persons whose freedom is restricted is identical with the class of persons whose benefit is intended to be promoted by such restrictions” (citation). Dworkin’s piece supports what the healthcare professionals did by explaining that rights can be taken from a patient if the treatment with better his or her life regardless of his or her desires. In contrast, Cowart did not agree with his rights being taken away from him. In his argument, he states that “the right to control your own body is a right you’re born with, not something that you have to ask anyone else for…” (citation).Cowart feels that the rights of the patient come above all ideas thag.t a healthcare professional generates. If a patient refuses treatment, then it is the patient’s freedom of choice to do so. Although no one may