Morality, Paternalism, And Justice : Ethical Priorities

As Albert Einstein once said, “The only source of knowledge is experience.” Seeing that I agree with Einstein, I stand in firm negation of today's resolution which states Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. For simplicity in the debate today, I would like to give the following definition from the Black’s Law Dictionary: Adolescence is the age which follows puberty and precedes the age of majority. It commences for males at 14, and for females at 12 year completed. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary says that the word ought is used to indicate a desirable or expected state. Autonomous, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, is having the freedom to act independently. The negative will support the value of paternalism, which as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. The value of paternalism will be defended with the criterion of knowledge and experience.

The concept of paternalism involves the notion that one person, generally a person in a position of authority, has the right to intervene and override the autonomy of another person. In terms of historical context, medicine is one area in which paternalism has occurred frequently. Throughout the ages, physicians and doctors have been placed in a position of authority in which they acted upon the bodies of their patients without those patients’ full knowledge or understanding. However, there has been a distinct shift in modern times regarding paternalism. With the publication of The Silent World of Doctor and Patient, Jay Katz advocated for a new attention to be given to the autonomous control of the patient. Katz noted that historically speaking,

Furthermore, I will provide the best-recommended course of action to be taken in this circumstance in order to resolve such issues addressed in this case study. In my opinion, it is best for a physician to disclose all information regarding their conditions, treatment options, benefits and risks to their patient in order to maximize and respect his or her autonomy or self-determination. Such a course of action is warranted because it would be incorrect for a physician to rely upon the premise of paternalism that “health and prolonged life must take absolute priority in the patient’s value orderings” and the belief that life and health are intrinsic without taking into regard the patient’s own values regarding these topics when deciding whether

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 my personal belief that it is appropriate for government to dictate interventions under restrictive circumstances. These include at risk populations but, not to force it down their throats; simply provide them information to make an informed decision. Also in the case of Pinel and his introduction of ethical guidelines, that was a positive mandate. Children’s rights in NM, and VT for adolescents to have privacy for health as young as 14 advances the betterment of society especially for the children. Cases like these are examples

If governments are charged with ensuring access to health care for all its citizens, then we would not have a class in addressing health disparities. There may be some improvements needed in order to fully hold governments accountable, but it is something that will not change in the near future (Hathaway 2002). Furthermore, Braverman continues to charge the governments responsible for providing a right to health, but in reality most governments are limited in resources to address these issues. Some governments may have very dysfunctional systems in place that are not capable to provide equal health to all its citizens.

The question of whether governments have an obligation, legally or morally, to provide citizens with access to health care is one that has been debated for decades and will more than likely continue to be for years to come. Some say governments are morally obligated to provide access and others say they are bound by the right to health. Do governments, whether federal, state or local, have the obligation to provide citizens with health access? Do they have an active role in regulating healthy and

An further objection regards the required nature of the program, as when a program is made mandatory, the governing body assumes a role in restricting the individual liberties of the constituents. Because of this, mandatory screening removes the freedom of self determination from an individual, and institutes the policy without their consent. This is a reasonable objection, but the liberties given up in exchange for the benefits of disease control are quite similar to the liberties such as taxes are given up to the state in exchange for the benefits of protection and infrastructure.

The government has a duty to protect the citizen of a population. Government cannot sit idly and watch people suffer and not do anything because a few citizens are against vaccination. Government has to protect mankind. This might seem paternalistic by the government but it is for the good of a society. For example, when seats belts were mandated to protect every individual in a society (McLeod, 2014). The long-term effect of polio is reported that 1 in 200 cases result in irreversible paralysis (McLeod, 2014). While 1 or 2 in 200 cases of whooping cough result in infants’ death (McLeod, 2014). With these numbers the government has the right to express their paternalistic view. The government also has to find a balance between parent’s autonomy and the right to protect the population. When parents and government realize that they have the same goals to protect children then a dialogue can open up on how to get more parents to vaccinate there children. People cannot disregard the goals of another if they are to act morally (Loewey & Loewey, 2000, p.35).

2.3 Analyze the tensions that arise when balancing the rights of the individual to independence and choice against the care provider’s duty to protect users of services in health and social care

Ethics in public health is different from ethics in acute care. In the acute care setting, the patient’s decision is followed through informed consent, while in public health, what the patient wants might not always be implemented because the

Daniels, N., Kennedy, B. P., & Kawachi, I. (2007). Why justice is good for our health: The social determinants of health inequalities. In R. Bayer & D. Beauchamp (Eds.), Public health ethics: Theory, policy, and practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Paternalistic policies can be effective in preventing injuries and deaths in the population (Gostin, 2008). Paternalism exists throughout Contagion. In order to keep the masses safe from contracting the MEV-1 virus, public health agencies initiated safety guidelines for the general public to follow. From a public health aspect, individual interests must yield to those of the wider community to facilitate the public’s health, safety, and well-being. The public health tradition values prevention and views its successes or failures based on the benefits and burdens that accrue to populations rather than to individuals. This

It follows, that the state should not lawfully exercise power to avert harms that an individual inflicts upon him or herself (Gostin & Gostin 2009). Moreover, it is based on the liberal consensus that autonomous persons know what is in their best interest, and should therefore be free from paternalistic interventions that prevent them from pursuing any form of self-regarding behaviour (Gostin & Gostin 2009). Although, Mill dictates an exception that children, whom have not yet developed their intellectual and moral capacities, as the only category of individuals that can be subjected to paternalistic regulation (Hoffman & Graham 2006). Arguably in this sense, mandatory vaccination schemes possess a paternalistic quality as they impose marked disincentives for a failure to comply with mass immunisation programs. In fact, much of the modern day public health regulations operate outside the permissible boundaries of the Millian principle, in safeguarding the health and safety of the population (Gostin & Gostin 2009). It is perhaps for this reason then that many contemporary liberals struggle with the inflexibility of the harm principle. Particularly regarding the misplaced anti-paternalistic view of mandatory vaccination schemes from an entirely individualist perspective, rather than considering an individual’s place and effect within a wider society. Moreover, Gostin and Gostin (2009) reason that ‘if the collective benefits are high and the individual

Throughout this semester, we have learned what it takes to become a leader and the different types of leadership. A particular importance of being a good leader is the consideration of ethics, equity, and social justice in relation to white privilege not only in organizations, but our lives. These three complex social ideals are necessary to ensure fairness, respect, and equal treatment among leaders and their followers. Though most people would agree that everyone deserves the right to these three attributes, they often are not aware that even with their efforts to eliminate white privilege and racism, they actually promote it because they do not clearly understand white privilege. Unfortunately, white privilege and racial discrimination continue to be prevalent in our society today.