Do you think it is morally acceptable for a doctor to treat a patient against their wishes or choices? If so, what justifies the action, and under which conditions is it acceptable? And if it’s not, why? Personally, I think it is a tough question for us to answer. When we consider these situations based on the morality, we can see that these concepts lie at a strong and weak paternalism, which are two philosophies involving when a doctor can ignore the patient's will. The only difference between those is the patient's ability to make well-informed decisions for themselves. Weak paternalism refers to a situation in which a physician will not just follow the patient's request if the patient can not prove that their choices are voluntary and
…show more content…
All in all, it makes me remember to the situation of my friend’s grandmother who had cancer. After treatment a lot with chemotherapy and radiation therapy, she decided to give up. For her, it was excruciating, so she did not want to continue the treatment. Nonetheless, the doctor determined that her choice should not be accepted because he felt that if she continues to cure her disease, it will improve. As can be seen, the principle of autonomy often comes into conflict with the principle of beneficence. For that reason, physicians usually use paternalistic approach while caring for their patients as they consider that approach as valuable for their patient. Although the intervention appears to be helpful to the patient, however, it violates the patient's autonomy by disrespecting their decision-making rights in a treatment plan. Therefore, I think the essential part that these physicians need to be concerned not just only what they believe that it is good, but also analyze the risks and benefits associated with the choices they make, which these decisions must be maximizing benefits and minimize harm to the autonomy. Additionally, there are some cases that physicians decide whether or not to …show more content…
For instance, refuse treatment, cesarean sections, or seat belt laws. Each will have the right to make their own choice, but it is not always be honored. To clarify, I will use the example of cesarean sections to explain this concept. Currently, there are many people want to have a cesarean section rather than delivering a baby vaginally, and vice versa that some people do not want to do a cesarean section. According to the Life Site News, there is one woman who loses custody of a child for five years for refusing cesarean section. Although these patients have the right to refuse treatment, they still cannot reject a counseling process for her and her fetus. Therefore, I guess she was not thinking seriously that if she did not want to have a caesarean section, her unborn child would be dead. Based on what I’m searching, doctors usually want pregnant patients to give a vaginal birth, because it has a quicker recovery time, and have less postpartum pain. Also, infants that born vaginally are less likely to have certain respiratory problems. Nevertheless, in some cases, patients need to do C-section, and have no choices, because of the risks while giving labor, such as baby cannot push out, the head of the child is not in a heads-down position, etc. In this situations, some patients still not want to do C-section; however, the decision will not be accepted by the doctor, because it is not safe for
All in all, it makes me remember to the situation of my friend’s grandmother who had cancer. After treatment a lot with chemotherapy and radiation therapy, she decided to give up. For her, it was excruciating, so she did not want to continue the treatment. Nonetheless, the doctor determined that her choice should not be accepted because he felt that if she continues to cure her disease, it will improve. As can be seen, the principle of autonomy often comes into conflict with the principle of beneficence. For that reason, physicians usually use paternalistic approach while caring for their patients as they consider that approach as valuable for their patient. Although the intervention appears to be helpful to the patient, however, it violates the patient's autonomy by disrespecting their decision-making rights in a treatment plan. Therefore, I think the essential part that these physicians need to be concerned not just only what they believe that it is good, but also analyze the risks and benefits associated with the choices they make, which these decisions must be maximizing benefits and minimize harm to the autonomy. Additionally, there are some cases that physicians decide whether or not to …show more content…
For instance, refuse treatment, cesarean sections, or seat belt laws. Each will have the right to make their own choice, but it is not always be honored. To clarify, I will use the example of cesarean sections to explain this concept. Currently, there are many people want to have a cesarean section rather than delivering a baby vaginally, and vice versa that some people do not want to do a cesarean section. According to the Life Site News, there is one woman who loses custody of a child for five years for refusing cesarean section. Although these patients have the right to refuse treatment, they still cannot reject a counseling process for her and her fetus. Therefore, I guess she was not thinking seriously that if she did not want to have a caesarean section, her unborn child would be dead. Based on what I’m searching, doctors usually want pregnant patients to give a vaginal birth, because it has a quicker recovery time, and have less postpartum pain. Also, infants that born vaginally are less likely to have certain respiratory problems. Nevertheless, in some cases, patients need to do C-section, and have no choices, because of the risks while giving labor, such as baby cannot push out, the head of the child is not in a heads-down position, etc. In this situations, some patients still not want to do C-section; however, the decision will not be accepted by the doctor, because it is not safe for