As discussed in class, Paternalism, as a philosophical concept, embodies the notion of authority or guidance exercised by one entity over another, purportedly for their benefit. Rooted in the belief that individuals may lack the capacity or insight to make optimal decisions for themselves, paternalism justifies interventions or restrictions on personal freedom to promote well-being or prevent harm. This complex ethical stance has long been debated across various domains, from governance and public policy to healthcare and interpersonal relationships. In exploring paternalism, one confronts questions of autonomy, beneficence, and the delicate balance between individual liberty and collective welfare. In this essay, I will discuss the theory …show more content…
Spears's erratic behavior, including shaving her head and engaging in altercations with paparazzi, and refusing to give her son back raised concerns about her mental health and her ability to make sound decisions. Additionally, her involvement with individuals who exerted control over her career and finances, such as her former manager Sam Lutfi, further heightened these concerns. Mill would argue that Britney's conservatorship is justified paternalism, as it aims to protect her from harm by granting complete authority over her life decisions to her conservators, including her father Jamie Spears, and lawyer Andrew Wallet. This intervention is deemed necessary to safeguard Britney's well-being and prevent her from making decisions that could endanger herself or others. However, Mill would also emphasize the importance of reassessing the conservatorship once Britney demonstrates the capacity to make decisions independently, ensuring that her autonomy is restored without compromising her safety or the well-being of others. Thus, while Britney's conservatorship initially aligns with Mill's theory of justified paternalism, ongoing evaluation, and consideration of her autonomy are essential to upholding her rights and
Patient autonomy was the predominant concern during the time of publication of both Ezekiel and Linda Emanuel, and Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma's texts. During that time, the paternalistic model, in which a doctor uses their skills to understand the disease and choose a best course of action for the patient to take, had been replaced by the informative model, one which centered around patient autonomy. The latter model featured a relationship where the control over medical decisions was solely given to the patient and the doctor was reduced to a technical expert. Pellegrino and Thomasma and the Emanuel’s found that the shift from one extreme, the paternalistic model, to the other, the informative model, did not adequately move towards an ideal model. The problem with the informative model, according to the Emanuel’s, is that the autonomy described is simple, which means the model “presupposes that p...
Decision-making would be so much easier if we all maintained our autonomy in making the decision, however, because our decisions do not always abide by autonomistic values paternalistic intervention must occur. The purpose of autonomy is to allow us to choose to do things that affect only ourselves and does not negatively affect those around us. Unfortunately, many choices do, whether we know it or not, involve those in our environment. Paternalism is in place to protect the rights that are in our best interest and that will benefit us in the long run. Paternalistic intervention occurs when decisions are no longer in our best interests. If the decision is like to be regretted and irreversible in the future, paternalism is again justified. Autonomy is a fleeting concept, for as soon as someone chooses to do something that will later cause an addiction, his or her autonomy is lost. They no longer have the decision to do or not to do the action; it becomes a need.
John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin seem to have different viewpoints about paternalism. Paternalism is interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by appeals to welfare or good or happiness or needs. John Stuart Mill seems to be against paternalism since there’s no justification, while Gerald Dworkin claims that it’s justifiable. The question that I will answer is the following: Is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? I will argue against paternalism and that it’s not morally justified and that it should not be implemented. It’s not morally justified because it limits our liberties, in which we cannot fully express who we truly are. In order to have a better understanding, I will start the essay
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? And if so, is the paternalistic intervention justified? Part of the concern
John Stuart Mills is wrong when it comes to his rejection of paternalism. Mills is taking a position that is in line with that of classical liberalism which in many ways is in opposition to paternalism. This ideology only acknowledges the individual and does not take in account the larger society. Many do not like to be told what is right when it deals with something that does not affect anyone but themselves. The issue with this is that individuals are part of something. They are part of a family, community, city and nation. The impact of those choices might be seen as insignificant and not have relevance outside of their own lives but it is a small picture view and forgets about the big picture. Mills is right that paternalism is taking away liberties but those liberties affect others in ways that a person might see. Society should act as a parent to its individuals because they could cause weakness or issues that go beyond the realm of one’s own household.
After reading both articles, “Paternalism” by Dworkin and “On Liberty” by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion.
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
A policy or practice of treating people patients in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them responsibilities. Paternalistic practices, wherein providers confer a treatment or service upon a person or persons without their consent, ostensibly by reason of their limited autonomy or diminished capacity, are widespread in healthcare and in societies around the world. Numerous issues surround paternalistic practices (Cody WK). So doctors and nurses make decision about the treatment of patients or their clients, but it is against the patient’s choices or thoughts, according to doctors and nurses, it is beneficial for the patient (Jones). On the other hand, when patient take autonomous decision then they will get some self-harm, so, conflict arises between the nurses those are on duty of the patient care and the patient’s right to autonomy. Frequently, nurses and other medical staff used the paternalistic action to resolve the problem (Jones). According to the Jones (p.379) suggested that, paternalism and autonomy as two inversely varying parameters along a spectrum of independence’. Moreover, nurses and doctors created an imbalance between...
Medical and Public Health Law Site (2009). Paternalism in Medicine. Retrieved from http:// www.biotech.law.lse.edu/ Clash of Cultures.
For these reasons and others, some liberal academics and politicians may reject the ‘positive’ conception of rights protection, preferring individuals to make their own decisions and to expand the realm of personal responsibility. For others, state intervention tends to be viewed as only necessary when it 'helps individuals to help themselves'. Once social disadvantage and hardship are abolished, citizens should be left alone to take responsibility for their own lives. In this way welfarism can be embraced, whilst the liberal preference for negative liberty, secured by minimal intervention, still stands.
In three writing pieces in particular, they show three very different points of view on this very contradicting topic. In Three cheers for the Nanny state, the author talks about how in 1859 John Stuart Mill wrote, “The only justifiable reason to interfere in someone's freedom of action was to prevent harm to others.” But that is not true. Our minds have their own way
In the article “Personal responsibility within health policy: unethical and ineffective”, Phoebe Friesen critiques the emphasis on personal responsibility in health regulations. She argues that this approach is unjust and ineffective. Regulations often pass judgment on people's actions without considering factors beyond their control, which is unjust and ineffective. This often results in placing all the blame on individuals. Through unethical ways of blame and moral judgment, and ineffective ways of resource allocations and behavior changes.
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.
Modern society has made a sub-culture that lives in a reality that is not real. It is so far from the truth that the inhabitants of this sub-culture so often cannot live in both realities and have become a spectacle for others to marvel at. This sub-culture is made up of entertainers, millionaires, and athletes. The people in this group can range from newborns to death and some live on well after. The specimens that I find an interest in are the young ones that enter into this society not knowing well that their lives will never be the same. Britney Spears was just another victim of the society that brings into their prison.
Sutrop M. (2011) How to avoid a dichotomy between autonomy and beneficence: from liberalism to communitarianism and beyond. Journal of Internal Medicine. 269(4):375-79. Retrieved from http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jim.2011.269.issue-4/issuetoc