Arthur Miller's Argumentative Essay

Dr. K struggles with a moral dilemma, should he or shouldn’t he tell Nora about her mother’s affair. The argument will be presented that if Dr. K were not to tell Nora, it would have more disadvantages than advantages. However, I will by arguing that Dr. K should tell Nora about Mrs. M’s affair with Mr. X for it will be most beneficial to Nora because it grants her the most rights, specifically the most autonomy, with the assumption that both Dr. K and Nora are rational individuals. My initial argument is that Dr. K should tell Nora about Mrs. M’s affair because it is morally impermissible to deceive a patient. It is morally impermissible because it prevents the patient, Nora, from making an informed decision about her life, which denies her autonomy. I will first define deception and autonomy in the context of medical ethics. According to Cullen and Klein, deception is intentionally causing another person to have a false belief and is especially wrong if a physician …show more content…
Dr. K literally knows more about Nora’s health than she does. The lack of information that Nora has renders her incapable of making an informed decision about her health; denies her choice about what decision she wants to make about her health. Once Dr. K tells her about her mother’s affair, she would be at her fullest capability to decide whether she wants another DNA test or to not have one at all. Dr. K’s paternalism would, not only enhance Nora’s capability, but also inform her of the wholly truth. Essentially denying Nora of the choice to know the truth of her mother would properly allow to make a rational decision about her life.
The argument was presented that Dr. K should not tell Nora about Mrs. M’s affair. However, as I argued, we cannot avoid telling Nora the truth without denying her of her full