Respect for patient autonomy is one of the principal pillars taught to medical students, a practicing physician’s greatest responsibilities, and is one of the most debated issues in medical ethics. Patient autonomy, in the medical practice, is the legal right of the patient to make final decisions about one’s medical care. In the health care system, however, too many times we see health care providers making decisions for their patients, oftentimes against their will. These providers will argue that they are making decisions for the greater good of their patients, a philosophical concept known as paternalism. In this paper, we will evaluate and defend the main pillar of medical ethics, autonomy, from these increasing ideals of paternalism
…show more content…
As defined in many hospital policies, however, competence should be tested through cognitive ability, understanding of relevant information, and if they can maintain and communicate a choice. In this case, the 74-year-old man was deemed competent and vocalized his choice under the given information. Therefore, for doctors or the health care team, to deny this patient’s right to autonomy would be refuting their basic care in the natural means of preserving life, opposing his medical directives, and rejecting his patient rights. Although this is just one case, we must evaluate what the health care field would look like if all physicians and health care professionals followed a paternalistic philosophy. Under paternalism, unseemly consequences would follow this philosophical practice. Physicians would decrease the time spent carefully assuring patients about treatment options, deinstitutionalize the foundation of medical ethics, relinquish the natural right of choice, and treat patients as means in themselves. Thusly, patient paternalism is in direct conflict with the categorical imperative, which are commands one must follow regardless of desires that use reason and a sense of consideration for other …show more content…
Branching from this foundation, Immanuel Kant’s concept states that freedom of autonomy is dependent upon the very freedom and obligation of others. Not only is Kantian autonomy a duty based system, but also is an extension of responsibility on the autonomous individual. With these considerations, Kantian autonomy refutes the common paternalistic objection to autonomy-that it leads to self-rule. Autonomy, however, does not support this kind of individualism, but rather distinguishes between rights and responsibilities. Kantian ethics, like all ethical theories, has its objections. In the debate over autonomy versus paternalism, when using Kantian ethics, the common objection is that there are conflicts to principles or duties between the autonomous patient and the physician. In the case of the 74-year-old man, this direct conflict would result from the man’s competent medical directive in choosing to eat a normal diet and the health care providers’ duty in providing medical care and reducing
As defined in many hospital policies, however, competence should be tested through cognitive ability, understanding of relevant information, and if they can maintain and communicate a choice. In this case, the 74-year-old man was deemed competent and vocalized his choice under the given information. Therefore, for doctors or the health care team, to deny this patient’s right to autonomy would be refuting their basic care in the natural means of preserving life, opposing his medical directives, and rejecting his patient rights. Although this is just one case, we must evaluate what the health care field would look like if all physicians and health care professionals followed a paternalistic philosophy. Under paternalism, unseemly consequences would follow this philosophical practice. Physicians would decrease the time spent carefully assuring patients about treatment options, deinstitutionalize the foundation of medical ethics, relinquish the natural right of choice, and treat patients as means in themselves. Thusly, patient paternalism is in direct conflict with the categorical imperative, which are commands one must follow regardless of desires that use reason and a sense of consideration for other …show more content…
Branching from this foundation, Immanuel Kant’s concept states that freedom of autonomy is dependent upon the very freedom and obligation of others. Not only is Kantian autonomy a duty based system, but also is an extension of responsibility on the autonomous individual. With these considerations, Kantian autonomy refutes the common paternalistic objection to autonomy-that it leads to self-rule. Autonomy, however, does not support this kind of individualism, but rather distinguishes between rights and responsibilities. Kantian ethics, like all ethical theories, has its objections. In the debate over autonomy versus paternalism, when using Kantian ethics, the common objection is that there are conflicts to principles or duties between the autonomous patient and the physician. In the case of the 74-year-old man, this direct conflict would result from the man’s competent medical directive in choosing to eat a normal diet and the health care providers’ duty in providing medical care and reducing