Negative Critique on Alan Goldman's View on Medical Paternalism

Medical Paternalism

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.

The main reason paternalism is even debated revolves around one primary question: Is it beneficial to the patient? This one question has, and will continue to evoke strong responses from those who hold viewpoints across the spectrum. The spectrum varies from those who are in favor of paternalism, to those who think it should only be allowed if certain criteria are met, to those who strongly oppose it in any form at any time, but may consent to a few, rare occasions when it would be deemed acceptable. One such person who strongly opposes paternalism is Alan Goldman, and he presents his argument in an article entitled, “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism.”

Goldman’s main premise is straightforward: except for extraordinary cases, medical paternalism is neve...

... middle of paper ...

...ment, they are expecting, and ready to receive some sort of direction because they want a change or improvement in their health, and this indicates that, at that time, a patient is holding his health in high value.

Goldman presents the patient’s ranking value as fixed and decided with no ability to change. In actuality, a patient’s ranking of different values can change depending on the circumstances. It is clear that when a patient goes to visit the doctor, they are ranking their health over other concepts because, at that point in time, their health has become their primary concern and they want to preserve it so they can continue to enjoy their other liberties.

Sources

Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York, NY: Oxford, 2013. Book.

Works Cited

Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York, NY: Oxford, 2013. Book.