Doctors Intervene Article Sample Essay.
Article why doctors should Intervene
STUDENT NAME
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION
Why doctors should intervene
There are several reasons why I agree with Ackerman’s position on the doctors’ intervention when it comes to the topic of patient’s autonomy. Autonomy is the ability to make informed decisions which are not externally influenced but from within the person’s conscious. Autonomy in medicine is when the patient decides on critical health matters and advices the physicians on what action they should take without the physician interfering with the decision the patient arrives at. The philosopher agrees that it is good to respect the patients autonomy of which we all agree with. However, he argues that noninterference on the patient’s autonomy fails to account for the outcomes of the diseases that the patient suffers from; hence the patient should discuss the issue with the physician to make an informed decision.
According to utilitarianism theory, act utilitarians believe that whatever action we take or decision we make should be for the betterment of life, increasing the amount of good things in life like happiness and reducing the wrong ones like pain and suffering. It states that it is the result or consequences of a law or action that determine whether it is good or bad. They resist the commands and moral codes given by leaders, customs, traditions, and put forward that what justifies morality are the positive contributions it brings to the life of a person. This version of the theory is in accordance with Ackerman’s position where a physician’s intervention and thorough conversation with the patient and close associates to the patient will help the patient make an informed decision concerning their health, considering all other underlying factors as well as those affected by the outcomes of that decision.
Contrary, another version of utilitarians theory contradicts with Ackerman’s position by stating that a certain action is morally justified if it fits in our moral codes. By this, they imply that a physician should act in accordance to the set medical ethics, obeying the set rules and allowing the patience to make their own decision that is regardless of the outcomes. He argues that the patient should decide on the less relevant matters like who to visit them in hospital or what channel to switch to on the hospital television but not the serious matters pertaining medication.
Countries across the world have put forward laws that state that physicians and doctors should respect and exercise total personal autonomy. This is supported by the incidence of ‘Subsequent Nuremberg Trials’ which saw twenty of the twenty three defendants charged of performing experiments against the consent of the prisoners held for war crimes where they tortured and murdered the prisoners cruelly. Those prisoners were given injections that killed them. They were not allowed autonomy on how they would rather be treated without relying on the physicians’ decision.
There has been numerous cases where the physicians experiment with patients’ bodies which is the reason why patients and the relevant bodies concerned with the rights of the patients disagree with this contradictory topic of allowing the physicians to make decisions on behave of the patients or rather influence their decision making. Some physicians have the tendency of exploiting patients especially the disparate ones hence they end up exploiting them for their own good. They further argue that the exploitation by the physicians has made the patients lose trust in the physicians’ decisions especially with the current advancement in medical sector where doctor are trying to invent new medicines.
The strongest objection to this claim and which makes it unattractive to me, as put forward by the contrarian is that they do not consider all the underlying factors that influence the decision-making capacity of the patient that may be influenced by factors like fear, denial as well as depression and intimidation depending on how other people will view it. The contrarians argue that the patient has to make decision related to their health regardless of the underlying factors since they are the ones affected. Ackerman says that he does not think autonomy is upheld when a patient refuses life-saving treatment just because they have the freedom to decide on their own. The physicians are well-educated people with adequate knowledge on issues pertaining health hence the patients should allow them to do what they are best at doing. Society has entrusted their health in the skilled hands of the physicians and hence should trust them with their well being since they deliver the best that they can offer.
Though those with contradicting idea to that of Ackerman emphasize on total patience autonomy, I urge them to reconsider their stand because the above argument has clearly pointed out that the advantages of doctor’s intervention when it come to patient’s health outweigh the disadvantages .
.