The Refutation Of Medical Paternalism

The following sample essay talks about the refutation of medical paternalism. To read the introduction, body, and conclusion of the essay, scroll down.

Alan Goldman’s piece. ‘A Refutation of Medical Paternalism’ . contains an statement for why medical paternalism is incorrect. Goldman argues from the thought of ‘The Relativity of Value. ’ Explain this peculiar statement and demo how it is an statement against medical paternalism ( be certainly to first specify what medical paternalism is ) . Do you believe this statement is right? Why or why non?

In biomedical moralss. the construct of patient liberty versus is a immense consideration. This liberty is frequently contrasted with what is called medical paternalism. Medical paternalism refers to doctors moving in respects to what they feel is best for the patient without much respect to the patient’s true wants. It is the intercession of an individual’s right of action justified by grounds mentioning to the public assistance and/or involvement of that person. While medical paternalism may be seen as positive.

many refute it. In Goldman’s paper. “A Refutation of Medical Paternalism. ” he talks about why medical paternalism is incorrect.

Goldman Refutation Of Medical Paternalism

Goldman refutes medical paternalism by presenting assorted statements that support his instance. One facet of his statement lies in the undermentioned claim sing the relativity of values: “The cardinal faulty premiss in the statement for paternalistic function distinction for physicians is that which assumes that wellness or drawn-out life must take absolute precedence in the patient’s value orderings” ( 67 ) .

Get quality help now

Proficient in: Ethics

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

Goldman states that in world. persons do non systematically move in order to minimise loss of life although the long-run penchant is to populate long. If persons did prioritise minimal loss of life invariably. all attempts would be purely directed towards health-related countries. This is non the instance. for “to realize or continue those values that give significance to life is worth the hazard of life itself” ( 68 ) . Therefore. Goldman states that it is unlogical for a physician to find what is best for the patient when such physician can non talk for what the patient’s set of values and precedences.

While a physician believes wellness is figure one in precedence. the person may non ever hold wellness as figure one at all times. The 2nd facet to Goldman’s statement is centered on the value of self-government. He argues that. as stated before. a physician can non truly cognize the true involvements of his patient. and at times. the patient may or may non even cognize his or her ain involvements. Because of this uncertainness. the physician is less likely than the patient to do the right determination. “We value the exercising of free pick itself in personally of import determinations. no affair what the effects of those determinations upon other satisfactions” ( 70 ) . When picks are of import to our lives. we like to cognize we have the ability to hold some control over them. When a physician holds the reigns of a patient’s good being without the patient’s say. it is difficult to state that the determination made is just. I personally concur with Goldman and the statements he presents. I can see both sides to the statement ; I can see why medical paternalism can be good in some instances. but I can see why overall it is a basic intervening of an individual’s liberty.

In the defence of medical paternalism. one can reason that it is expected of the medical practician to make what is best for his or her patient. However. as Goldman states. what does the practician know of what is best for a patient? For illustration. a patient may be in demand for a blood transfusion. Yet if the patient happens to be a follower of the Jehovah’s Witness. the physician can’t perchance coerce the patient to take the transfusion. for it straight goes against the patient’s beliefs. I believe that although physicians may medically hold an thought as to what is best for an person. what is of import is for the person to follow. for it is his or her organic structure that is being affected.

Cite this page

The Refutation Of Medical Paternalism. (2019, Dec 05). Retrieved from

The Refutation Of Medical Paternalism
Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7