Patient Paternalism

This article relates a lot to the conversation revolving around what is called Patient’s Rights in the medical field. The article is regarding the subject of paternalism, which is defined in the article as “the overriding of a person’s actions or decision-making for his own good” versus the concept of patient autonomy which is defined as “a person’s rational capacity for self-governance or self-determination. The two terms in themselves are somewhat paralleled to each other in the sense that they both aim to achieve the same goal but they differ in their belief of what is in the patient’s best interests. This article relates the subject of paternalism to the theory of Utilitarianism, from the perspective of Kantian ethics as well as John Stuart’s …show more content…
At the time, a lot was rooted in belief and culture, medical professionals were regarded as saints in most cases and would be given the benefit of the doubt in a lot of cases. One case listed in the paper is that of Bouvia which perfectly illustrates the issues that existed in the medical field at the time. An individual who is well aware and competent to make her own decision was not allowed to do so. She was living a very uncomfortable life, in pain with cerebral palsy, confined to a chair at only 25 years of age, and made the decision that she was tired of living in such a condition. She wanted help committing suicide by starvation. The hospital refused and she was eventually committed to nasogastric feedings to prevent her from achieving her goal. The hospital while having the best of intentions was not at all acting on behalf of the patient. They felt that with proper care, she could live another 15-20 years despite her wishes. At the time, it made sense, a hospital is where you do everything possible to extend lives, not shorten it. In this case, they were following the theory of utilitarianism which “demands that we maximized the good for everyone involved”, in other words, they were to do everything possible to extend her live even if it’s not what she …show more content…
Both philosophers mentioned in the above paragraph would argue against paternalism because they argue for the need for the individual to make her or his own decision if the decision is not causing any harm to another individual. Those philosophers’ ethics would also not condemn a doctor for not wanting to partake in the act of assisting suicide as each person has a right to their own beliefs. A question that usually comes up during conversations is “what if a child molester comes into the ER, am I allowed to refuse him assistance based on my morals?’. the paternalism issue would not be at play in this case because the patient is not refusing care, and a medical professional’s primary duty if beneficence towards the patient unless the patient clearly refuses. There are however cases where a patient’s autonomy can be suspended. For example, a patient who becomes a threat to others due to a psychotic break might get committed to a mental institution against her or his will. Usually such order requires an order from the courts that is legally binding with time limits and requiring constant monitoring from medical professionals until the patient’s status has been