Is Dax Cowart An Autonomous Being?

I believe that patients have the right to decide what they intend to do for their future health care. Patients are not just people we give a bed to so they can die. They have plans that they intend to have laid out for themselves. As healthcare professionals, we must respect the patient’s

We came to this decision because we felt that if a few professional psychiatrist can render him mentally competent than he should be allowed to make his own decisions because it is moral. This is moral because people should be allowed to do what they want with their body, and as Cowart says it is, “the right to control your own body is a right you’re born with…” (Cowart 2). However, this is refuted when that person cannot make rational decisions because that person would be mentally incompetent. People that are mentally incompetent are incapable of making decisions that are in their best interest. We also discussed his mother and how all she cared about is for him to receive treatment which we thought was a bit selfish. This is a typical parental perspective considering that parents do not want to outlive their children. However, she should have sought out what was best for him and what he was going to be happy with and not her. As a group we also felt that he should have received better pain treatment especially since Cowart found out later that they could have done more for his treatment. If someone is in as much pain as he was and when a doctor is confronted with the request to die, that doctor should be doing everything he or she can to bring down the pain.

The third and final reason why I agree that Dax should not have been able to refuse treatment and have other people assist in his death is because Dax Cowart would have been treating himself and those he requested this of as merely a means. According to Kant’s philosophy, “we must always treat people (including ourselves) as ends and not as means only”. (Munson p. 752).

Autonomy includes three primary conditions: (1) liberty (independence from controlling influences), (2) agency (capacity for intentional action), and (3) understanding (through informed consent) (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 100). According to Beauchamp & Childress (2009) to respect autonomous agents, one must acknowledge their right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on their personal values and beliefs (p. 103). Respect for autonomy implies thaturges caregivers to respect theassist a patient in achieving? Heed? the autonomous choices of their patients. From there, patients can act intentionally and with full understanding when evaluating medical treatment modalities. Autonomy also includes a set of rules, one of which requires that providers honor patient decision-making rights by providing the truth, also known as veracity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 103). In this case, several facets of the principle of respecting autonomy, specifically veracity, informed

In his essay, The Refutation of Medical Paternalism, Alan Goldman states his argument against a strong doctor-patient role differentiation, in which the doctor may act against a patients’ immediate will in order to carry treatment in the patients’ best interest. Goldman frames his entire argument around the single assumption that a person’s freedom to decide his future is the most important and fundamental right as he claims “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.”[1] He claims that the majority of people would agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest

It is important that the patient is aware not only of their rights, but of their individual responsibilities.

To begin with the person is the centre of the plan, to be consulted with and their views must always come first: It should include all aspects of their care, and every professional should work together to provide it. (Leathard 2000) Autonomy refers to an individuals’ ability to come to his or her own decisions and requires nurses to respect the choices patients make concerning their own lives (Hendrick 2000).However Gillon Argues that the principle respect for autonomy may need some restriction, otherwise we may be morally obliged to respect an autonomous course of action with unthinkable consequences.( Gillon 1986) Every human being has an intrinsic value, they all have a right to well being, to self-fulfilment and to as much control over their own lives as is consistent with others (British Association of Social Workers 2002).Professional Judgement and patient preference cannot be suspended if practice is to be safe and effective rather than routine(DOH 2005) Alex had to attend this session as it was within his Timetable, how could it have been effective?, he was unhappy and

Although there are several debates against this view point, it is not up to anyone else to make decisions of the ill and infirm. As such it should be recognized that “patients have a right to make

Autonomy refers to a patient’s right to give informed consent for treatment (Rae, 2009, p. 112). Jonathon’s case is one of autonomy; who has the right to decide for him? According to Family Caregiver Alliance (2000), “you have the right to make your own decisions about your care” (para. 14). In this case, qualified medical staff have determined that Jonathan is mentally competent and perfectly capable of making a rational decision ("Quality of life case study - Session #1," n.d., para. 3). The fact is that he is capable of making his own medical decisions; from my perspective there is nothing further to question here. Even from the ethical egoism perspective this fact cannot be changed. However, the ethical egoist may struggle with the idea of Jonathon refusing treatment for his diabetes; wondering why medical professional will not intervene. Here we must review the state laws; “Medical law in your state does allow patients the right to refuse

Nursing is an all encompassing profession in which practitioners are not only proficient in technical medical functionality, they also have the obligation to remain compassionate and respectful of patients and as such are expected to adhere to pre established codes of ethics. Of these ethics, autonomy is of extreme importance as it offers patients a sense of personal authority during a time where they may feel as if their lives, or at the very least their health, is no longer under their control. Autonomy in the context of nursing allocates the patient and often their family with the final word on the course of treatment. The concept of patient autonomy is a highly variable subject in all fields of health care. It is a universal concept that varies widely in its meaning and interpretation. Autonomy in its simplest form can be defined as a state of independence or self governing (Atkins, 2006). Patient autonomy can also be defined as the ability to make once own decisions, based on one’s sound judgment. It is defined by the American Nurses Association (ANA, 2011) as the "agreement to respect another 's right to self determine a course of action; support of independent decision making." This seemingly straight forward ethical concept is rife with difficulties when one considers potential disagreements that may arise even when informed consent is provided, particularly among children or vulnerable people. Relevant research and

Respecting autonomy is when a physician respects a patient’s wish when the patient makes a fully informed decision. (Rhodes, 77) Patients are expected to participate in their health care by understanding the risks and benefits of the procedures they agree to, and the physician are expected to provide necessary information and allow independent choice. Miller, in his essay “Cosmetic Surgery and the Internal Morality of Medicine”, argues that cosmetic surgery does not allow for true autonomy as deceptive advertising fails to properly inform patients of plastic surgery risks:

Autonomy: Patients have the right to determine what should be done with their own bodies. Because patients are moral entities they

However, doctors should not prioritize beneficence over respect for autonomy because of the importance of allowing a patient to have free will. According to Roger Higgs, it is considered in modern day society that an individual himself is assumed to be the best judge of his personal interests, and that it is a basic right to be able to make decisions pertaining to one’s own life—a right that “should not be taken away simply on the grounds of illness” (11). Respecting autonomy should be a priority because it preserves a patient’s right to know what is going on with their health and allows him or her to make personal decisions regarding its care. When a physician strictly follows the principle of beneficence instead of respect for autonomy, such as through lying to protect patients from emotional harm, the patients become unaware about the reality of their wellbeing. Without knowledge of the truth, this aforementioned right of freedom to make one’s own decisions is taken away from patients—how can one make a choice about their health when those choices are kept hidden? Overall, free will is a fundamental basic right that everyone is entitled to, not just in a medical context, but life as a whole. Every human being universally deserves to have the freedom to choose how to live their lives and make decisions regarding themselves without the influence of another individual.

Autonomy is the “personal rule of the self that is free from both controlling interferences by others and from personal limitations that prevent meaningful choice” (Pantilat, 2008). Autonomous individuals act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences. Respect for autonomy is one of the fundamental guidelines of clinical ethics. Autonomy in medicine is not simply allowing patients to make their own decisions. Physicians have an obligation to create the conditions necessary for autonomous choice in others. For a physician, respect for autonomy includes respecting an individual’s right to self-determination as well as

Patient autonomy is the right of the patient to determine their own health treatment. Therefore, the doctors are required to be good communicators and, if necessary, they need to accept the patient’s decision. The story centres around Ken Harrison, a victim of a car accident, which resulted in a complete paralysis and additionally a change of his life. Although he desires to