Health professionals are constantly working on improvements because of ethical concerns that they face in their everyday lives. The relationship between a physician and a patient is often seen as a relationship with no errors or ethical concerns but that is not the case. There are constant adjustments that are made to ensure everyone is accounted for and treated in a humane manner. Although the health system focuses on accommodating for everyone, there are many times that adolescents suffer due to their inability to make their own decisions in a health setting. Adolescents do not have the ability to make their own decisions towards their health without parental or guardian consents and many times they also base their final decision on the bias …show more content…
It is important to realize that promoting adolescent autonomy at an early age allows adolescents to practice self-care and be well informed about medical procedures (Beacham & Deatrick, 2013). In order to prevent these issues from intervening with adolescents to make autonomous decisions there should be laws that are enforced without exceptions; exceptions leave a large margin for error. Parents and health care professionals are unethically practicing paternalism and not allowing adolescents to practice autonomy due to conformity, religion, and personal interest.
There are many reasons that an adolescent’s decision can be manipulated when they are giving their input in a health-care setting. One of the reasons that can prevent an adolescent from fully expressing what they ultimately want when making a decision towards their health is because they conform to their parent or guardian. There can be circumstances where an adolescent does not fully express themselves because of their family’s religion. When it comes to religion and medicine things can get really difficult. Some adolescents are taught by religious parents that healing is done by Christ not by concurrent
…show more content…
Health professionals have the right to object to making any procedure they are not comfortable doing; this is called conscientious objection. Conscientious objects can prevent the patient and/or parents from being completely informed. There have been cases where conscientious objections have been violated because of self-serving motives, this can prevent adolescents from making autonomous decisions. Some of the self-serving motives include discrimination, moral beliefs, etc (Güvercin & Arda, 2013). Health- care professionals have a moral obligation to inform their patients of all medical procedural options or alternative even if they are personally making a conscientious object to them (------). The main issue here is that professionals are morally being held accountable for it but not legally; situations like this can cause uprising issues because it can affect decisions on what is best for the patient at the time. The best solution for this problem would be for the professionals to educate their patients all all possible health procedures and to let them know that if they cannot take care of it someone else in the field will. Also, educating patients on what the medical procedures would entail would also be beneficial for example at they might be going though, recovery time, or even how
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
According to Terrence F. Ackerman, as of the 1980s the American Medical Association had to include the respect for a person’s autonomy as a principle of medical ethics (Ackerman 14, 1982). This includes having the physician provide all the medical information to the patient even if the information could cause negative implication onto the patient. The physician is also expected to withhold all information of the patient from 3rd parties (Ackerman 14, 1982). Although it is seen as standard in today’s world, in
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.
At first, I believed that a patient should have the say so and get what they demand. I didn’t feel sympathetic for the health care provider one bit. I was able to look through the eyes of a physician and see the trials that they have to go through. It is not easy making the decisions that they have to make. There job is based on decisions, and most of it is the patient’s. “There will certainly be times when I will be faced with a request from a patient or patient’s representative that I will personally find morally difficult, but one that is still legally and ethically acceptable. must be very difficult to work in an area with little control over what you want to do.” (Bradley 1). Even though I do not fully understand a health care providers everyday role, I do know that they are faced with painful options. I personally feel that I can not work in this field for that exact reason. Health care providers play an extremely important role in our society, and others need to look upon
Parental involvement is a positive factor in a teens life; however, too much involvement can be restrictive to the teenagers right to choose. When parents take away the right to choose, teenagers tend to “question the parents’ beliefs” as it helps them “develop a sense of identity.” (Dobbs) Juliet dismissed the idea of marrying Paris because her parents were telling her what to be interested in making her venture off to the complete opposite of what they wanted for her.
It is important that people are in control of what happens to them while under the care of their doctor, especially if they're alert and aware. A provider cannot force treatment; if a patient is unconscious, the situation changes because competency and informed consent are not present.
Within public health, the issue of paternalism has become a controversial topic. Questions about the ethics of public health are being asked. The role of ethics in medical practice is now receiving close scrutiny, so it is timely that ethical concepts, such as autonomy and paternalism, be re-examined in their applied context (Med J Aust. 1994). Clinically, patients are treated on a one on one basis, but public health’s obligation is toward the protection and promotion of an entire population’s health. So, based on this difference, the gaping questions targeting public health now becomes, under what conditions is it right to intervene and override an individuals’ autonomy?
Although only a small percentage of children are dying from faith-healing practices, the awareness needs to be brought to the public. Faith in a religion has many benefits but the idea of abandoning medicine is bad for ones wellbeing. Precautionary signs of illness in infants must be treated immediately. Medicine alongside faith is the ideal situation in which many lives will be saved. Holding faith has proven to be positive for many people but one must take cautionary action when treating illnesses with faith healing as their only medicine. Faith healing and medicine collectively used with one another can yield the highest rates of recovery and general wellbeing, through reducing stress, relieving pain and anxiety, and increasing the desire to live. When the human body is able to release these stressors, one’s health has an increased rate of being cured.
John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks Mill’s argument down into two distinct types, one based on utilitarianism and one based on the absolute value of free choice.
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
I personally feel that the life of a person is well above all policies and regulations and if an attempt to rescue him or her from death at the right time remains unfulfilled, it is not the failure of a doctor or nurse, it is the failure of the entire medical and health community.
In his essay, “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism,” Alan Goldman discusses his argument against differentiation in the roles between physicians and patients. He says the physician may act against a patient’s will in order treat the patient in their best interest. Goldman makes his whole argument around the assumption that a person’s right to decide his or her future is the most important and fundamental right, saying, “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.” His claim is that most people agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest and there is an innate value in the freedom to determine their own future. On these principles, Goldman starts by discussing conditions under which paternalism may be justified.
Adolescence 38.150 (2003), she says that Although adults receive considerable encouragement to become active participants in healthcare decisions, children and adolescents often have little voice in decisions about their medical treatment (Kunin, 1997; Lidz et al., 1984). As minors, adolescents often are unable legally to provide informed consent and are granted limited access to
While the doctors were most likely using their standard of best interest, autonomy is an ethical principle that plays in Cassandra’s defense. Autonomy can be described as an agreement to respect another’s right to self-determine a course of action. In this case, it is difficult to argue that autonomy played a role in the decision-making. In the article, it is stated that for the legal situation that occurred to happen is unusual, but in extreme cases, where parents of minors refuse treatment when the patient will surely die, results in action by the Department of Children and Families. The patient, Cassandra, however, was 17 almost 18. This is not using autonomy it is purely the department using the standard of best interest in their opinion.
“‘Minors consent laws are extremely important’, argues Abigail English, director of the center for Adolescent Health and the Law. ‘They encourage young people to seek health care services they need and enable them to talk candidly with their providers’” ( Boonstra and Nash n.pg.). Abigail English, focuses her research on what is best in the world of healthcare, she found that giving minors medical privacy has proven to have more positive results. Studies have shown, “of physicians surveyed, seventy-five percent favored confidential treatment for adolescents” (Loxterman n.pg.). Doctors understand that the information their patients share is often embarrassing or touchy so they strongly feel the need to keep it private. They fear if they do not, the patient will be hesitant to share what is actually going on. Also, a study done by the American Medical Association found that doctors more heavily support medical privacy for a minor than the general