Philosophy
1 a.
Medical paternalism is a medical conduct that gives medical personnel immense authority and power as far as the treatment of patients is concerned. The following essay looks at medical paternalism and whether it is a valid medical practice or completely uncalled for.
Medical paternalism is a principle that gives medical personnel certain powers and liberties. Medical paternalism is the frame of thought that the medical personnel can withhold certain information from the patient or even forcefully administer certain forms of treatment and medication contrary to the wishes of the patient. The main argument behind medical paternalism is that the medical practitioner is by all means an expert as far as matters health are concerned. It is therefore only appropriate that certain issues affecting the life and treatment of the patient be left at the best discretion of the medical practitioner.in other words the medical practitioner knows best and the decision to apply certain forms of treatment or even withhold some3 information from the patient is entirely left in the hands of the medical practitioner. Alan Goldman is however of a different view and a different frame of thought entirely. Alan Goldman bases his refutation of medical paternalism almost entirely on ethics especially ethics intertwined with the medical field. According to Alan Goldman the concept of medical paternalism is completely unethical.
Alan Goldman gives an example of a patient who is completely rational and in full control of all their faculties be they medical or otherwise. According to Alan Goldman the wishes of such a patient must be honored by all medical personnel at all time. If such a patient refuses a certain form of treatment may be due to religious inclinations or other personal reasons then the medical practitioner has absolutely no right to force such forms of treatment on the patient with or without the knowledge of the patient. The medical practitioner also has an obligation to relay all information to the patient regarding the health of the patient on request. This is because the patient is in full control of all their senses. The patient is capable of dealing with any aspect of their health that the medical practitioner brings up.as such it is only sufficient that the medical practitioner fully complies with the wishes of such a patient when it comes to matters modes of treatment and full disclosure of information (Goldman, 2009).
Alan Goldman however gives a situation where medial paternalism is excusable and fully acceptable. Such a situation is one whereby the patient is not in full control of their mental faculties. Such a patient may be under the influence of alcohol or other forms of drugs which would affect the better judgment of the patient and make them especially non receptive to medical care and forms of medical treatment.in such a situation Alan Goldman says that the ethical thing for the medical practitioner to do is to employ medical paternalism. This is because the patient at this point is not rational at all. The objections by the patient to certain modes of treatment may be as a result of hallucinations or drug induced waves of rage and violence. The ethical thing for the medical practitioner to do in such a situation is to by all means act in the best interest of the patient.in such a situation the best interest for the patient might be contrary to the wishes of the patient. The mental state of the patient however rules out the possibility of the patient having a stake in their treatment as they are not thinking clearly at the time or in some instances they are not thinking at all.it is therefore ethical for the medical practitioner to proceed and treat the patient using the necessary means irrespective of the wishes of the patient at the time.
1 b.
Alan Goldman would most certainly not agree with the decision made by dr. not to disclose full information to Marcia w. This is because Marcia w was in full command of all her faculties be they mental or otherwise. There is also the issue of the doctor patient confidentiality and ethics. This dictates that the medical practitioner is by all means obliged by good ethics to disclose all information regarding the health of the patient to the patient.in other words Marcia w had every right to know everything from dr.w. The doctor had absolutely no right to withhold any information from Marcia w. His decision not to tell Marcia w everything as far as her health was concerned was a personal decision and not a medical one. According to Alan Goldman patients go to doctors when they are at their most vulnerable. They place their full trust in the hands of the doctor with the faith that the doctor will do the right thing as far as their health is concerned. Alan Goldman further argues that this trust must by all means be repaid by trust. The medical practitioners should repay the trust that the patients have in them in kind and also be honest with the patient regarding their health both presently and in the future. According to Alan Goldman doctors should therefore by all means disclose all the information regarding the health of the patient to the patient as long as they are not in any violation of the doctor patient confidentiality code of conduct which applies to all medical practitioners all over the world.
According to Alan Goldman the decision by medical practitioners to withhold information from their patients is often motivated by the need to prolong human life. Alan Goldman however argues that the prolongation of human life is nothing short of an illusion. There are certain instances where death is imminent. The withholding of information from the patient by the medical practitioners will not serve to prolong the life of the patient. This withholding of information will only give the patient a sense of false hope and uncertainty going into the future. There is no ethical backing for the medical practitioner to withhold information from the patient at such a time. Such patients have every right to know their exact medical condition both presently and leading up to the future. This will give the patient much needed closure and a sense of certainty even if the certainty is certainty of death. The idea of withholding information from the patient is such a situation under the guise of prolonging their life is a fallacy because there is nothing that can be done medically to prolong the life of the patient. The patient not knowing their exact medical status will not help to prolong their life. Rather this will lead to a situation where we have a confused and uncertain patient and to add insult to injury this confused and uncertain patient just so happens to also be dying. Ethics is therefore eliminated from the decision by the doctor to withhold information from the patient. This means that the doctor cannot claim to have withheld information from the patient because it was the ethical thing to do. According to Allan Goldman this is in actuality contrary to ethics. It is in reality ethical and there is no backing, either medical or ethical or otherwise, for this kind of behavior by medical practitioners and other members of medical teams.
1 c.
The refusal of dr. c is not justified. This is because there is no legitimate and tangible reason that he can give to support his decision of refusing to tell Marcia w the complete truth. There is also no medical evidence that supports his course of action. He only acted in what was in his opinion the best interest of Marcia w. The fact however remains that the only person capable of quantifying the best interest for Marcia w is none other than Marcia w. The fact that Marcia w went to see dr.c tells a lot about the situation in itself. The fact that Marcia w went to see dr. c clearly tells that Marcia w was curious about her medical condition. The fact that she went to a qualified doctor means that she wanted the facts about her health and not half-truths that dr.c cooked up to sugarcoat the truth about the medical state of Marcia w.in reality dr.c is in violation of the trust between patients and doctors. Marcia w paid the doctor good money to evaluate her, tell her exactly what was going on and then give her options as to what to do next if such options existed at all. The doctor however fails to honor this simple request by Marcia w. Marcia w does not get her money’s worth by any means. She only gets a fraction of what she paid for with her hard earnings. Some might even consider dr.c a fraud. This is because h with holds information and gives people a false sense of hope in a future he clearly knows is very dim for the people in question.
Medical paternalism is therefore uncalled for. It has no ethical backing and gives doctors liberties over their patients which they should not have.
3 a.
Procreative liberty is a principle that advocates autonomy and liberty as far as child bearing is concerned. The following work looks at procreative liberty and analyses its pros as well as its cons.
When john Robertson introduced the concept of procreative liberty he was talking about liberty as far as procreation is concerned. According to john Robertson people should be given their liberties as far as procreation is concerned. This means that if an individual does not wish to have children or rather procreate then the individual is at complete liberty to by all means do so. The greater society should not frown upon an individual because of their orientation towards not procreating. Rather the greater society should respect the wishes of the individual as far as procreation is concerned and as such fully embrace the individual and also fully embrace the decision of the individual not to procreate or have children. John Robertson’s procreative liberty is also known as children of free will. This alternative name is very important in as far as explaining and fully understanding the concept is concerned. This alternative name perhaps hits the nail on the head as far as the concept of procreative liberty is concerned. According to this alternative name for the concept it is clear that the concept advocates for freedom and autonomy as far as child birth is concerned. This means that the decision to have a child is an individual decision.t is a decision to be mad entirely buy the free will of the individual. The individual should therefore not be subjected to any forms of discrimination or prejudice by any quarters as far as child bearing and child rearing is concerned. This is purely an individual decision and should by all means be left at the discretion of the individual (Robertson, 20005).
The concept of procreative liberty is not only concerned with the decision to have a child or not to have a child. This is a very broad topic and overs all aspect that involve child bearing.an example is the issue of abortion. According to john Robertson there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion. He is of the frame of thought that the decision to either have an abortion or not to have an abortion is purely an individual decision.as such this decision should be left to the discretion of the involved party.no outside parties should interfere or meddle with the decision of an individual to either have an abortion r keep a child. This issue is however very broad and by all means not limited to abortion. The issue of surrogacy is also a contentious issue as far as this topic of discussion is concerned. Surrogacy is an instance or rather process whereby women hire out their wombs. These women engage in child bearing as an active economic activity. They bear children for people to earn their living and are paid for delivery of the baby as well as other forms of compensation for all the hardships dealt with during pregnancy. According to john Robertson there is absolutely nothing ethically wrong with surrogacy. This is because this concept advocates for freedom as far as child bearing is concerned. Part of this child bearing freedom is surrogacy.it is but one of the many options on the table as far as procreative liberty is concerned.it is well within the liberties of any given person to hire a surrogate other for purposes none other than child bearing.it is also fully within the liberties of any given woman to engage in child bearing as an active economic activity and a way to earn an honest living. The main ethical issue here is liberty. Liberty stands out as perhaps the most fundamental of all the human rights second perhaps only to the right to life. The right to liberty therefore by all means transcends all ethical codes as well as moral codes of conduct. It is therefore very unethical for society to try and suppress liberty in the guise of preserving ethics.
3 b.
According to john Robertson science is a way of enhancing liberties.as such medical research and medical breakthroughs all serve to increase the levels of personal liberty as far as child bearing is concerned. John Robertson fully embraces the concept of reproductive medicine. He does this with the pretext that reproductive medicine only serve to give more options as far as child bearing is concerned. Reproductive medicine increases the options on the table with reference to child bearing. They enable a person to have a wider variety to choose from as far as child bearing is concerned. This therefore means that medical research is a fully acceptable term and concept according to john Robertson. Getting sperm donors is an essential part of medical research into child bearing.an individual might want to bear a child with certain physical traits or other traits. The individual therefore has to carefully choose a sperm donor with all the physical traits that the individual would like to be inherent with their child. This is perhaps the perfect embodiment of procreative liberty at work. The liberty is very clear in the fact that the individual has the right to choose exactly who donates sperms as this is very important in determining the traits of the baby they want to have. Then we have the issue of Marge Gower choosing a sperm donor. The question is exactly how john Robertson would react to this issue. He would jump up and down and run around in joy at the concept. This is because this issue is exactly in line with what he advocates and stands for. John Robertson is a man who stands for free will in all matters child bearing and reproduction. He would completely agree with marge Gower choosing a sperm donor. This is because this is in line with the liberties of procreative liberty.an individual has the right to choose whether or not to have a child and exactly what kind of child to have. This is because there are certain inherent traits which an individual would want their child to have.no one is truly at liberty to deny an individual the right to choose exactly what kind of child they want to have. If a person wants a child who will grow up to be tall the person by all means has the right not only to desire such a child but also to pursue all the means that will enable thee individual to get the perfect child of their choice thus according to john Robertson the right to choose a sperm donor of one’s choice is well within the liberties of the individual making the choice. This adds weight and contributes to the concept of child bearing by choice.
3 c.
This policy of procreative liberty has both its pros as well as its cons but the pros by all means outweigh all the cons. This is because procreative liberty is exactly what modern society needs.in this modern society the devil lies literally in the details. Perfection is everything and is a virtue held in high esteem by a lot of people. Every human being is ever striving for perfection be it in terms of their career or other aspects of life. Child bearing should be left behind as far as this craze of perfection is concerned. Striving or rather aspiring to have a perfect child is a perfectly acceptable philosophy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with striving to have a certain type of offspring. The choice to have a certain type of offspring should be left completely at the liberty of the individual. The choice of whether to have children all together should also be maintained as an individual choice. The right to abortion is always the liberty of an individual. If a person does not desire to bear a child then abortion is a viable option or rather course of action to pursue in the given situation. Abortion helps reduce the rates of unwanted child births and ensures that all children are born in environments where they are wanted and fully accepted. It helps reduce the rates of unwanted children and by extension cases of children being abandoned by their parents.
References
Robertson, J. A. (2005). Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
goldman, a. (2009). the reutation of medical paternalism (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Section 4 reproductive technologies,bioethics: human life issues.
