Alan Goldman's The Refutation Of Medical Paternalism

For the purpose of this case study, I will specifically examine the ethical issues of medical paternalism and deception-to-benefit-the-patient and whether their use can be viewed as justifiable. The act of “overriding a person’s actions or decision-making for his [or her] own good” or paternalism exercised by Dr. Haveford by choosing not to disclose all information to his patient can be evaluated through both the empirical and moral arguments against paternalism argued by Alan Goldman’s “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism” (Vaughn). It is mentioned that the doctor withheld information about clinical trials because he did not what to overwhelm the patient or cause her to experience emotional harm and, thus, he was acting in the best interest of his patient despite being aware of her value for honesty in their

Therefore, despite having prior knowledge of the uncertainty that arouse in Janet when presented with a lot of information, Dr. Haveford should have honored her right to self-determination with awareness that disclosing all information would not cause harm to her. In addition, from the moral counterargument against paternalism it is made apparent that harm could come to the patient due to a physician honoring their autonomy by disclosing information, but despite the possibility of harm overriding their right is still not warranted (Goldman). When Dr. Haveford came to the conclusion that the disclosure of all information about clinical trials would ultimately harm Janet, he failed to take into account the “most inclusive notion [that] harm is relative to the values and preferences of the particular individual” (Goldman). Hence, what may be considered harm to him