Cronin’s warning to the public to not overly trust and depend on medical practitioners to act responsibly and in their best interests, is warranted. Trust is particularly important when the health of the patient is compromised, as they are in their most vulnerable and frightened state. Many individuals determine trust on the basis of the effectiveness of treatment, thus judging the competence of the doctor (Mechanic, 1996). However, as Cronin vindicates, patients are unknowledgeable and thus not always able to detect pseudo-remedies, or unskilled doctors. To the reader’s horror he exemplifies how Manson’s inexperience is a menacing threat to public safety, but even more so he reveals that even the most experienced physician with first class …show more content…
240). Instead, he proposes that ideally a panel of laymen should regulate the profession, however, he dismisses the viability of such scheme as working men are “too biased, [and] too unintelligent” to carry it out effectively (Cronin, 2013, p. 210). However, the medical profession, as it stood in the 1930s, is unable to deal with members who behave incompetently and unethically (Donaldson, 2008). This is due to the medical elites, who represent and control the medical institution, being ignorant and perpetrating notorious practices themselves. This is a consequence of the clinical freedom possessed by professionals to exercise clinical judgement and discretion, which asserts their authority, without any form of accountability (Parker, 2005). Cronin’s proposal to alter the ideals of the profession, to become more scientific, does not target the very the root of corruption. The unchecked power and supremacy of the medical institution, built upon the formation of trust and reliability, allows them to control society (Bosk, 2006). Physicians have “the power to define, diagnose and expand the domain of illness in need of expert intervention” (Bosk, 2006, p. 638). As such, they are able to “transform if not actually create the substance of [their] own work” (Freidson, 1988, p. xvii), by introducing the notion of illness as a social state. Consequently, the freedom of the layperson diminishes, as they are convinced into believing that they are ‘ill’ and in need of urgent medical attention (Zola, 1972). Additionally, doctors and pharmaceutical companies intentionally broaden disease categories, and encourage the medicalisation of daily life, in order to increase the profit generated from their products and services (Moynihan, 2002). The only means of exterminating venality from the institution, is to constrain the unbound
The concepts discussed within the article regarding medicalization and changes within the field of medicine served to be new knowledge for me as the article addressed multiple different aspects regarding the growth of medicalization from a sociological standpoint. Furthermore, the article “The Shifting Engines of Medicalization” discussed the significant changes regarding medicalization that have evolved and are evidently practiced within the contemporary society today. For instance, changes have occurred within health policies, corporatized medicine, clinical freedom, authority and sovereignty exercised by physicians has reduced as other factors began to grow that gained importance within medical care (Conrad 4). Moreover, the article emphasized
People trust doctors to save lives. Everyday millions of Americans swallow pills prescribed by doctors to alleviate painful symptoms of conditions they may have. Others entrust their lives to doctors, with full trust that the doctors have the patient’s best interests in mind. In cases such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, the Crownsville Hospital of the Negro Insane, and Joseph Mengele’s Research, doctors did not take care of the patients but instead focused on their self-interest. Rebecca Skloot, in her contemporary nonfiction novel The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, uses logos to reveal corruption in the medical field in order to protect individuals in the future.
In her personal essay, Dr. Grant writes that she learned that most cases involving her patients should not be only handled from a doctor’s point of view but also from personal experience that can help her relate to each patient regardless of their background; Dr. Grant was taught this lesson when she came face to face with a unique patient. Throughout her essay, Dr. Grant writes about how she came to contact with a patient she had nicknamed Mr. G. According to Dr. Grant, “Mr. G is the personification of the irate, belligerent patient that you always dread dealing with because he is usually implacable” (181). It is evident that Dr. Grant lets her position as a doctor greatly impact her judgement placed on her patients, this is supported as she nicknamed the current patient Mr.G . To deal with Mr. G, Dr. Grant resorts to using all the skills she
“Cullen and Flein Concede that in rare cases, it is permissible for doctors to deceive a patient but only if the deception is for a short while and if the potential gain from the deception is probable and significant. (Cullen Klein
In the realm of medical ethics, there are many topics that are debated and discussed, but there is not necessarily one clear, correct answer. One of these topics is paternalism. Many questions are bandied back and forth: is it beneficial, should it be disallowed entirely, are there instances when paternalism is good and beneficial, and the list goes on. For each of these questions there have been authors who have provided their comments. One such author is Alan Goldman. He draws a very firm line on paternalism, simply put: medical paternalism is deleterious to a patient because it intrudes on their primary rights of liberty and autonomy. This paper is going to expound upon Goldman’s viewpoint in detail, going through point by point how he presents his argument. There will then be a critique of Goldman’s viewpoint that will counter his main points. The counterpoints will show Goldman’s views on paternalism are incorrect and should not be considered valid.
For countless years there has always been an urgent need for doctors. Different methods would be used to cure people from their sicknesses. However, life is given by God and it is he who can take it away. Doctors play the role of saving lives, but in the end, they are powerless because nature has to take its course leaving humanity at its limits. In Vincent Lams novel “Bloodletting and Miraculous Cures”, Lam challenges the myth that doctors are omnipotent by contending that “medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability”. Using Fitzgerald as a focal point, Lam debunks the myth that doctors are omnipotent through situations of medical failure, having a loss of power and control and by inhabiting deadly diseases. By showings his mistakes, Lam proves that Fitz is not perfect and God like.
Dr. Gawande emphasizes the value of making mistakes, and how it is a core component of his daily life as a physician. His mistakes are dependent on the “good choices or bad choices” he makes, and regardless of the result that occurs, he learns more about himself as a physician, and more about his connection with patients (215). Critic Joan Smith of The Guardian newspaper mentions that although his various stories about “terrifying” mistakes that doctors make induce fear and a sense of squeamishness within the reader, it is the “emphasis that human beings are not machines” that is “oddly reassuring” (Smith). For example, in the essay, “When Doctors Make Mistakes”, Gawande is standing over his patient Louise Williams, viewing her “lips blue, her throat swollen, bloody, and suddenly closed” (73).
The author explains how randomized clinical trials put physicians in ethically intolerable positions of choosing between the good of the patient and that of society. A kantian argument is formed when the author explains how the physician has the duty to tell the truth and not use the patient as a mere means to satisfy the needs of a majority. The well being of the patient is far more important than that of the society when it comes to treatment by personal physician, the Author suggests that there should be alternatives to randomized clinical trials to deal with observer bias and patient selection. The overall message of the article stresses the importance of a patient’s well being over the well being of a society because the physician has the duty to help the patient improve his/her health.
The patient should have confident and trust in their doctor, but the doctor must also recognize that the patient is entitled to have an attitude to illness and his preferred way of tackling this (Turner-Warwick, 1994). Buchanan infers that paternalism eliminates an individual’s power of making their own choices and thus pressed into making decisions. To achieve public health goals, greater considerations must be directed toward promoting a mutual understanding of a just society (Buchanan, 2008). So, if people are given the choice to make certain decision over another, then they are still granted freedom of choice. Buchanan identifies 3 arguments in justifying paternalistic actions: informed consent, weak paternalism, and utilitarianism. To support his argument of informed consent, Buchanan admits there is no significant ethical concern because an individual may reach out to the professional for help, but it is problematic when an intervention is targeting the entire population (Buchanan, 2008). This point of view from Buchanan is flawed and completely limits what public health is all about. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines public health as “what we, as a society, do collectively to assure the conditions for people to be healthy.” With its use of the phrase “we, as a society,” the IOM emphasizes cooperative and mutually shared obligation and it also reinforces the notion that collective
In “Should Doctors Tell the Truth?” Joseph Collins argues for paternalistic deception, declaring that it is permissible for physicians to deceive their patients when it is in their best interests. Collins considers his argument from a “pragmatic” standpoint, rather than a moral one, and uses his experience with the sick to justify paternalistic deception. Collins argues that in his years of practicing, he has encountered four types of patients who want to know the truth: those that want to know so they know how much time they have left, those who do not want to know and may suffer if told the truth, those who are incapable of hearing the truth, and those who do not have a serious diagnosis (605). Collins follows with the assertion that the more serious the condition is, the less likely the patient is to seek information about their health (606).
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
Conrad, Peter, and Joseph W. Schneider. 1992. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. St. Louis: Mosby.
Physicians hold responsibilities to their personal patients, but also responsibilities to the patient populations for whom they are held accountable (Rhodes, Francis & Silvers, 2007). Additionally, they are expected to advance and support the growth of medical science. Nevertheless, the most recent criticism has been accorded to the allocation of resources. As much as physicians are appropriate or designated communal resource custodians, they need to be conscious of the quality or cost of medical care. The American healthcare system is badly broken, we are in the grip of a very bid industry that will never stop making money. The healthcare aspect of today economy depends on the financial aspect. You cannot get or receive medical care without insurance. Some people are offered free healthcare which tax payers pay for. This help people who or poor, low income or middle class however. I will write about why the healthcare industry is such a financial burden to poor, middle class and pre-condition people. How the medical industry charge $1,500 for 5 minutes for someone to put a needle in you but $15 for 45 minutes for someone to exam
Patients are forced to do what the doctor says because they are in fear of their illness and the help of someone specialized in the field will soothe them. The doctor in the story knows that there is an increasing number of cases of diphtheria, a fatal disease affecting young children and he also knows that if he does not get a diagnosis now then the girl will die in a, “bed of neglect”. It is because of this fear that the parents cooperate with the doctor and allow him to use brutal force to open the girl’s mouth. The doctor possess power over the patient already has. While the doctor is in a calm state the patient is usually gripped with fear. This fear puts the patient in a bad position because the doctor doesn’t need to worry since he doesn’t have the illness. If the doctor is ignored then the patient runs the risk of dying from a disease they could have prevented and that in itself is very powerful. The patient will blindly trust the doctor because of the slur of emotions and panic. However what will happen if all the power of the doctor was removed? Will the world be a better place? Personally I believe that there needs to be some form of authority that a doctor must possess in order for
The purpose f this paper is to answer the following question- where does patient autonomy leave off and professional expertise begin in the practice of medicine? Also, a brief personal analysis about the differences between doctors encouraging patients to question their judgment and doctors who believe that such deference is “pandering.”