Paternalism and Patient Autonomy
Question #1 Was Elizabeth Bouvia’s argument right?
The case of Bouvia is both moral and legal. It discusses a patient’s right to refuse life-sustaining medication according to medical ethics. Due to the worst situation Bouvia was at, she had all the rights to refuse treatment and seek starvation as a means to end her life. She was a competent patient and had a patient’s right of autonomy was applicable in her case. According to the available patients’ rights, a competent patient, has a fundamental right to refuse treatment regardless of whether it would prolong or save his/her life or not. These rights; however, often considered in the perspective of terminal prognoses, they are applicable even to “terminal” patients under both federal and state constitutions.
Question #2 How far does the right to refuse treatment extend and under what circumstances are there exceptions?
As indicated in the arguments from the medical ethics, the right to refuse treatment must be in line with the ethical standards. The physicians have all the rights to preserve life, prevent suicidal acts and protect the innocent third parties, unless the patient is a terminal patient, with a proof of terminal prognoses. In the case of Bouvia, the prognosis was that she might live for 15 to 20 years, however, without a quality life and with pain. In the event treatment is against an individual’s right to patient autonomy, it is legally right to stop it. Therefore, she was right to refuse treatment.
A patient’s quality of life should surpass the mere situation of being alive and, taking this fact into consideration, Bouvia had all the right to refuse the medical intervention and seek a life of peace and dignity as she mentioned it. In Bouvia’s case, her refusal to treatment was not similar to supporting her to commit suicide, and the quality she would get in living was an essential element to consider. In the medical code of ethics opinion 2.20, physicians have a right to relieve a patient from pain and sustain life. However, when the physician-patient needs conflict, the preferences of patients should prevail. In summary, a patient has a constitutional right to a patient autonomy, and to decline medical treatment.
Question #3 Define paternalism and autonomy in your own words
Autonomy is a principle of a patient’s confidentiality, truth telling, and informed consent on operations that involves hem or her. On the other hand, paternalism is where physicians make therapeutic decision on what they consider to be of the patients’ best interest without involving them, even if they could decide for themselves.
Reference
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, USA.
