Negative Critique on Alan Goldman's View on Medical Paternalism

Medical parents' style In the field of medical ethics, there are many topics that need to be discussed and discussed, but there is not necessarily a clear and correct answer. One of the themes is a parental style. Many questions are round trip ::: Is that useful? It is a good idea to have a parental style if it is not completely banned and this list is still ongoing. For each of these questions, the authors submitted their opinion. One of the authors is Alan Goldman. Simply put, medical parent's style is detrimental to the patient as it violates their main freedom and autonomy.

Alan Goldman 's "counterfeit of paternalism in medicine" contains an assertion that a medical parent' s style is incorrect. Goldman Sachs believes that the "relative value of value" is the point of view. Explain this particular argument and explain how it goes against the parent's medical style argument (first you must define what is the parent's medical style). Do you think that this argument is correct? why? In biomedical ethics, the concept of patient autonomy is a major consideration. This autonomy is in stark contrast to the so-called medical parent's style. A medical parent's style is to act on behalf of doctors thinking that they are most suitable for them regardless of the patient's real desire. This is an intervention to the right to take personal actions for reasons related to personal welfare and interests. A medical parent's style may be considered positive, but many people dispute it

It opposes all forms of parental style, but "modernization". First, "Doctor knows best" is not just technical and scientific issues, but what is good for the patient, secondly it is determined by the doctor for the patient Prove that it is right to make a decision. The question of whether it is good or bad for someone is not an objective question but a question that can only be determined by an individual and no one else has the right to decide on these issues for me. Doctors need to accept it morally, no matter how stupid it is for him to think of this decision, to die without following the severe nausea resulting from chemotherapy. The same can be said about "modernization".

Goldman Sachs refutes the parent 's medical style by introducing various arguments to support his case. One aspect of his argument is the next assertion of the relative value of value: "The fundamental error in the discrimination claim of the physician's paternalistic role is that the health or longevity hypothesis is in the patient's ranking of values It must be given absolute priority. " In fact, Goldman Sachs said that in spite of long-term taste being longevity, individuals do not necessarily take action to minimize the loss of human lives. If an individual gives priority to the lowest loss of life, all efforts will be directed to strictly health related fields. It is not so (68) that "realizing or maintaining the value of the meaning of giving life is worth the danger of life". Therefore, Goldman Sachs said that it is illogical to decide what the doctor is best for the patient when the doctor can not say patient values ​​or priorities.