The philosophical problem surrounding medical paternalism is that it is considered morally unacceptable for a physician to veto one’s autonomy and act paternalistically by intentionally lying, providing false information, or withholding information. By acting in this way, the physician is limiting the patients’ ability to make a completely autonomous decision for themselves. This allows for the question “is medical paternalism ever justified”? In this paper, I will argue in support of Zembaty’s thesis that medical paternalism may be justified if acting non-paternalistically would potentially destroy the patient’s autonomy. For the purpose of this paper, medical paternalism will refer to a physician interfering with a patient’s autonomy with
