This topic can be approached from many perspectives. In this paper the focus is on the health perspective, which includes the aforementioned facts from section 2.1.
3.1 The individual vs. the government
Considering healthcare policies the big question arises is in what state we can keep individuals responsibility. Nowadays with lots of information on the Internet you might think that the individual is responsible for their own choices about how to live their lives. Basically because there is a lot of information around that tells them how. Cappelen and Norheim (2004) sum nicely several pro’s and con’s to this topic in their paper ‘Responsibility in health care: a liberal egalitarian approach’.
They address two reasons why we should link
…show more content…
The practical objections contain that holding an individual responsible for their own health is an important principle but will also create new problems. Think about asymmetric information about a patient’s past behaviour and that the link between the need for a certain treatment and the behaviour is not always that clear. The other objections, the normative objections, can be divided in three different types: (1) Humanitarian objections - We are obligated to help people who are in real need. (2) Liberal objections - Equal political and civil rights. (3) Fairness objections - Some consequences depend on external factors outside the individual’s …show more content…
The two political movements that face each other at right angles are liberalism and paternalism.
Liberalism is a political ideology that suggests a big freedom for the individual and that governments and such interfere as little as possible on individual behaviour. Bronwsword (2013) sketched how the liberal principles in relation to health can be coherently set alongside the stewardship responsibilities of regulators. He concludes that whether people prefer weak or strong regulation of lifestyles, the main point is that there needs to be responsible regulation for public health. (Brownsword, 2013).
Paternalism is a political movement of the 19th century where the government as some sort of ‘strict father’ ruled the people. More positively stated is it also a way of reign where the government protects its people when they are not capable or informed enough to behave ‘the right’ way. Conly (2013) argues that it can be morally permissible to coerce people into doing what is good for their own health. What she shows is that considering obesity that knowledge is not always the key. A lot of obese people know they are too fat and people in MC Donald’s know that fries, milkshakes and burgers contain a lot of calories. Yet, they still eat it. So when knowledge is not the key to prevent people from eating, the government should help the people by banning certain ingredients and force to adjust the
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
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.
Liberalism is an ideology which advocates equality of opportunity for all within the framework of a system of laws. It includes a belief in government as an institution whose primary function is to define and enforce the laws. Furthermore, a Constitution, must be developed not solely by one ruler but by representatives of the elite groups. Therefore, liberalism invariably involves a belief in the need for legislative bodies which represent the influential groups. The Constitution then defines ...
Principles of Biomedical Ethics, by Tom Beauchamp and James F. Childress, has for many critics in medical ethics exemplified the worse sins of "principlism." From its first edition, the authors have argued for the importance and usefulness of general principles for justifying ethical judgments about policies and cases in medical ethics. The organization of their book reflects this conviction, dividing discussion of particular ethical problems under the rubrics of the key ethical principles which the authors believe should govern our moral judgments: principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice.
To conclude this thesis, he maintains his position by talking about the “federal control[ing] of [the] health care” (467) system because the government is preventing private health insurers from charging overweight and obese clients a higher premium. With all facts considered, he asserts that by allowing the government to take all of these initiatives, “We’re becoming less responsible for our own health” (467). This logical and coherent reasoning demonstrates
Wilson , James G. S., “Rights”, Principles of Health Care Ethics, Second Edition, eds. R.E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper and J.R. McMillan. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2007. pp. 239.
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
Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed consent, the patient must be aware and should be able to give a voluntary consent for the treatment and testing without being coerced, even if coercion is very little. Being coerced into giving consent is not voluntary because others people’s opinions account for part of his decision. Prisoners and the poor population are two areas where coercion is found the most when giving consent. Terminally ill patients also give consent in hope of recovering from their illness. Although the possibilities are slim of having a successful recovery, they proceed with the research with the expectation of having a positive outcome. As stated by Raab, “informed consent process flows naturally from the ‘partnership’ between physician and patient” (Raab). Despite the fact that informed consent is supposed to educate the patients, it is now more of an avoidance of liability for physicians (Raab). Although the physician provides adequate information to his patient, how can he ensure that his patient properly ...
One of the most commonly debated topics in recent American history has been that of health care. Would Americans be able to reap more benefits if individuals continue to be independent in their pursuits of health care, or would it be beneficial for all if the government introduced more regulations regarding health care, changing our system to resemble those of other developed countries? As more solutions are offered, it becomes harder for people to reach a consensus on the best way to approach this issue. Despite this, America must decide what system of healthcare will benefit the most citizens and improve the quality of life the most. It is becoming increasingly apparent that a universal healthcare system would be the most effective and
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "’Rights- Based’ Approaches." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 23. Print.
To conclude, health care is a primary responsibility of governments. They have to make sure that everybody has a total insurance which ensures equality between all members of the society with no segregation between rich and poor. Marxist theory mentioned that medicine became a profitable project more than a human task to serve people and save their lives as it was linked to capitalism. John, the poor factory man was guilty for doing such a sever action to keep hostages but at the same time he wasn’t guilty to be poor and didn’t have an insurance to save his son’s life. Physician role is to be fair when dealing with patients and to think of morals and ethics of the profession before thinking of money.
Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people, tempered by fear. William E. Gladstone In this essay I will be arguing about 2 political ideologies; this essay will be highlighting the comparison and contrast between the 2 ideologies and their elements. The 2 ideologies that will be discussed are liberalism and conservatism, the essay will explain what ideology is, a brief explanation of their elements and the comparison between them.
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
We make personal choices about what and where to eat. The government is not going to eliminate the unhealthy food because we think it is the cause of obesity. Ultimately, we must decide to either stay away from unhealthy food or eat them in moderation. Despite all the efforts of education, media and guidance it doesn’t prevent us from grabbing that cheeseburger with fries on the way to work. In his essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that society should take full responsi...
The fact is that in our country, any government intrusion looks undesirable. We are so used to making free choice and to having access to everything we need and want that we have already forgotten the value and usefulness of the government control. No, that does not mean that the government must control everything and everyone. What I mean here is that the government control should be balanced with the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, plentiful foods do not lead to improved health conditions. We cannot always make a relevant choice. Our hurried lifestyles make us extremely fast, and eating is not an exception. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful. I believe, and in this essay I argue that the government must have a say in our diets. Because there are so many obese people, because obesity is an expensive disease, and because very often it is due to poverty that people cannot afford healthy foods, the government must control the amount and the range of foods which we buy and eat. Healthy foods must become affordable. Poor populations must have access to high quality foods. The production of harmful foods should be limited. All these would be impossible if the government does not take active position against our diets.