Dandan Zhang
PHI 3633
Case A Response Paper
In the case of the 19-year-old patient X seeks to get a vasectomy, strong paternalism is evident in the urologist’s refusal to perform the surgery. Paternalism is defined as overriding someone’s actions and decision-making for his own benefit (71). In patient X’s case, his autonomy and ability to make his own rational decision were undermined by the urologist, who stated he was too young to make such a decision. The benefits of this paternalistic act, according to the urologist, are the patient’s ability to have children and the lack of regret in the future. Paternalism is the result of the conflict between physician’s and the patient’s difference of interests, where beneficence and autonomy are at odds with each other.
There are two kinds of paternalism, weak and strong, with both taking a patient’s autonomy into consideration. Strong paternalism is defined as overriding someone’s decision-making even though he is substantially autonomous (72). As stated in the case information, patient X is a healthy young man at the prime of his life. He went into his routine well-visit and asked for a referral to a specialist. It is assumed that he is substantially autonomous enough to take control of his own health and to make decisions …show more content…
The physician stepped in because he deemed patient X’s lifelong decision to be outweighed by beneficence. Strong paternalism is exemplified by how the urologist overrode the patient’s choice to promote his welfare down the line. However, the strong paternalism is focused on what the urologist believes the benefits to be, instead of the patient’s own set of benefits. The urologist believes patient X made this decision on an impulse rather than a deliberate, rational choice, and the assumed impulsiveness needs to be put to a stop before it is too
PHI 3633
Case A Response Paper
In the case of the 19-year-old patient X seeks to get a vasectomy, strong paternalism is evident in the urologist’s refusal to perform the surgery. Paternalism is defined as overriding someone’s actions and decision-making for his own benefit (71). In patient X’s case, his autonomy and ability to make his own rational decision were undermined by the urologist, who stated he was too young to make such a decision. The benefits of this paternalistic act, according to the urologist, are the patient’s ability to have children and the lack of regret in the future. Paternalism is the result of the conflict between physician’s and the patient’s difference of interests, where beneficence and autonomy are at odds with each other.
There are two kinds of paternalism, weak and strong, with both taking a patient’s autonomy into consideration. Strong paternalism is defined as overriding someone’s decision-making even though he is substantially autonomous (72). As stated in the case information, patient X is a healthy young man at the prime of his life. He went into his routine well-visit and asked for a referral to a specialist. It is assumed that he is substantially autonomous enough to take control of his own health and to make decisions …show more content…
The physician stepped in because he deemed patient X’s lifelong decision to be outweighed by beneficence. Strong paternalism is exemplified by how the urologist overrode the patient’s choice to promote his welfare down the line. However, the strong paternalism is focused on what the urologist believes the benefits to be, instead of the patient’s own set of benefits. The urologist believes patient X made this decision on an impulse rather than a deliberate, rational choice, and the assumed impulsiveness needs to be put to a stop before it is too