Persuasive case, a case of Autonomy

The world today is service centered. On the other end, the services offered should be geared towards satisfying the needs and the aspiration of the client. In view of this statement, the client has a final say on the product, and by this assertion, I strongly feel the doctor ought to have strictly followed Janes wish. Were it in a developed democracy as Lauren asserts, then she had her rights violated. In deed, the liberal individualism theory offers the best in as much as Janes case was concerned.

The assertion that under whatever circumstance, provided that the mental capability of the patient is proven fit, the patient should be given a chance to make a choice is good both in reason and in principle. Given that the two psychiatrists had diagnosed that the pains had not rendered her mentally incapable, the decision she was making was rational, if their analysis was anything to go by, doctors should put their patients interest first. Beauchamp L T and Childress F. J Pp 16.  In view of this, her request for euthanasia was dully justified. A patient who is not eating is not even getting the least in Maslows hierarchy of human needs wherein even the first level is not satisfied.

When it comes to individual decision as Dworkin puts it, then the individuals right and decision thereof supersedes the societal rights. While the doctor would have largely considered the institutional principles, I feel rights supersede principles. In view of the above, I feel the doctor was intervening in a private life, which is ultimately wrong. Every individual will yearn to be autonomous both in conscience and physique. And if autonomy is an individuals right, then I feel persons like Jane should be allowed to exercise their universal right. Is it not that the wearer of the shoe knows where it pinches most it is Jane who was feeling the pains.

The assertion that patients are incompetent to make any decision, I feel, is outdated, dictatorial and draconian. A move away from this is worthwhile and is long overdue. The reason for bringing in a psychiatrist lacks if the statement is anything to go by.  In all strong terms, there are no consequences on the part of the doctor given that it is the decision of the patient-client. Beauchamp LT and Childress F J feel medics should be driven by consequence rather than reason and principle. The balancing principle and rule states always obtain oral or written consent for medical interventions with competent patients, except in emergencies, in forensic examinations, in low risk situations, or when patient have waived their right to adequate information. .

Beauchamp LT and Childress F J, Pp 19.
Though, Beauchamp T L adds caution that this needs interpretation, at face value, and by whatever interpretation, Jane has Justification in this assertion. He adds (Pp 19) that the moral principles are so prima facie and that they are not absolute. It is the impression that was being created by Jane, which should have dictated the doctors decision.

On the backdrop of this well-founded assertion, I feel logically convinced beyond any treasonable doubt that the doctors resistance and decision thereof was wrong, self-centered and autocratic. The service industry has to remain consumerclient-centered. Their will has to remains the corner pillar in business decisions. Janes decision should have carried the day be allowed to rest peacefully, willfully.


Post a Comment