In the modern world: Value Systems and Meaning
In the modern world, value systems and meaning are subjective and relative. The moral argument centering on medical paternalism alludes that a doctor has the right to claim acuity of a patient and decide because a doctor he is informed and learned. Here, the doctor determines that the choices and the wishes of the patient should not be honored (Brewin 5). The doctor has the ability to claim a higher power of judgment concerning the judge. However, one would disagree with this argument as it interferes with individual’s anatomy and liberty. This infringes the rights of the person. Indeed, the decision of the patient is paramount, and it should be respected and treated with absolute confidentiality. Notably, people who claim that medical paternalism is a greater idea have to recognize that independence and anatomy are key factors in the medical field. Independence or rather enhanced autonomy refers to the total freedom of choice without any form of interference while anatomy denotes self-determination.
Arguments for Medical Paternalism
Arguments for medical paternalism indicate that disclosure of information to the patient reduces the risk of death and depression. However, this could be highly refuted as people cannot design the social policies that would inhibit death. For this reason, long life and health are less significant values when compared to self-determination. Thus, the medical information of the patient should be confidential. Ethics will claim that doctor-patient dialogue is the fundamental basis for resolving issues. Negotiation solves differences and also there is the exchange of ideas. The doctors should be willing to serve the patient's best interests, and this depicts to be an effective approach to managing the clinical dilemmas along with other philosophic and moral propositions. Hence, the medical paternalism is a flaw. Actions made should be right and have to seek in promoting happiness as Mill elucidates in his utilitarian argument.
Refutation of Medical Paternalism
Alan Goldman refutes the medical paternalism argument and he questions the key reasons why a “physician should be allowed to behave because of his professional role in a way we would not allow a non-professional to behave” (Goldman). Goldman calls this “strong role differentiation,” and he assumes that only an individuals have to be given access to vital information concerning his or her well-being (Goldman). He further alludes that the patient has the right of knowing the truth concerning his or her medical condition. The patient also has the right to react to the information through rejecting, accepting or withdrawing. Goldman premise states that self-determination is a primary right of every person. From this premise, it follows that lying to the patient in the context of medical information is more damaging compared to revealing the truth to the person about the health status. According to Goldman, this interferes with the right of autonomy or rather, self-determination of the patient.
Self-Determination and Autonomy
Self-determination is the ideas that a person’s decisions are well determined by deliberations and motives as well as through an individual’s values and characters. Also, the argument for self-determination elucidates that one’s desires and feelings should be allowed in making vital decisions about life. There is no doubt that the concept of self-determination is convincible. The concept of “free-self” in decision making in life is the core of the autonomy (Perry and William 18). The right to undertake an action has to be determined by a person, and his or her desires allowed to prevail. According to Goldman, self-determination is an important fact in medial filed as it helps in promoting the right and freedom of the patient in deciding the future. It is essential in guiding the doctor to avoid acting against the will of the patient. More importantly, the medical practitioner is only entitled to carry out the treatment that alludes to the patient’s best interests. Goldman asserts that self-determination is autonomy, and he mentions that “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them” (Goldman). He goes ahead to claim that many people will confirm and agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interests and thus they should be allowed to decide for themselves.
The Value of Self-Determination
The value of self-determination cannot be underestimated in medical practice. It promotes self-rule and thus avoids interferences which could be a limitation in making a meaningful choice. A person with autonomy acts freely, and this promotes personal liberty. With the idea of self-determination, an individual's choices, beliefs, and decisions are autonomous as long as they conform to the ways of the society and do not harm any person. Opponents of self-determination should realize that autonomy is an intrinsic value and thus an instrumental factor in promoting the well-being of a patient and everyone in the society. Indeed, the proponents of this view recognize that there is value in making our own choice and no one is willing to let another individual choose for us what is right when we are convinced that we make the best choices (Perry and William 21). On philosophical grounds, a person’s choices are agents and one uses his or her rational capacities in controlling their lives. Through this, people give purpose and meaning to life. Hence, self-determination is convincible.
Works Cited
Brewin, T. B. "Who Should Decide? Paternalism in Health Care." Journal of Medical Ethics, vol 10, no. 1, 1984, pp. 51-52. BMJ, doi:10.1136/jme.10.1.51.
Goldman Alan. Refutation of Medical Paternalism. https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/sfsu09/extra/ReadingSALprivconf.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2018.
Perry, Clifton B., and William B. Applegate. "Medical Paternalism and Patient Self-Determination." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol 33, no. 5, 1985, pp. 353-359. Wiley-Blackwell, doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1985.tb07136.x.
