ipl-logo

Jukka Varelius's Argument Analysis

656 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Individual autonomy

RECONSTRUCTION
Jukka Varelius presents a sensitive topic about what should be done when a patient refuses a treatment that could save them. Patients have a right to refuse treatment due to autonomy, which is generally held with utmost importance in our culture when it comes to healthcare. However, Varelius argues that giving the refusing patient the treatment anyway may actually be the best way of upholding autonomy. He first begins his argument by making a distinction between the subjective and objective views of wellbeing (p.164-165). He explains these theories in regards to prudential principles. In the subjective theory, a patient’s wellbeing is dependent solely on their own opinion. On the other hand, in the objective theory, the wellbeing of the patient is dependent on more than one factor. Varelius then goes on to start …show more content…

After all, autonomy means that the patient is in charge of their own life and can make decisions for themselves. However, this argument did end up changing my viewpoint to an extent. By supporting his argument with the concept of a person’s wellbeing, the author causes me to believe that in some cases disregarding a patient’s wishes may be better for them. He does this by including the subjective and objective theories of wellbeing. In many cases, the objective theory is better because it is not dependent on only one factor. So, if we use this theory with regards to the refusing patient, it can be reasonably argued that saving the patient would allow them to continue a life making autonomous decisions. I agree that this would produce a better outcome than respecting the patient’s wishes of letting them die unnecessarily. However, I don’t believe this to be true for all cases. I believe that this argument is dependent upon the case because sometimes respecting a patient’s wishes can produce a better outcome than not respecting

Show More
Related
1953 Words | 8 Pages

Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for.

Read More
622 Words | 3 Pages

Should the patient be able to make medical decisions or should the doctors? Whose body is it anyway? Which judgement call should be made, the practical or the personal belief? The author, Atul Gawande, proposes these questions in the book, Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science.

Read More
590 Words | 3 Pages

Atul Gawande in his article “Whose body is it, anyway?” introduced couple of cases, which discussed a controversial topic, doctors dealing with patients and making important medical decisions. These are difficult decisions in which people might have life or death choices. Who should make the important decisions, patients or doctors? Patients don’t usually know what is better for their health and while making their decisions, they might ignore or don’t know the possible side effects and consequences of these decisions.

Read More
642 Words | 3 Pages

The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.

Read More
1240 Words | 5 Pages

Indeed, a patient should definitely have to give permission for doctors to do any action on their bodies because this will give them the rights and power they deserve . There are many reasons why a patient should be in control of their bodies , including the fact that they will be able to control what happens to them and be fully aware of the doctor’s intentions. For example in text 1 ( The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot ) it can be shown what could happen to you if you are not aware of what the doctors are doing to you . In the text it describes a story of a woman who got her cells basically stolen and later revealed to be immortal because of their self regenerative abilities . Not only are these cells still being used today but her family has gotten no type of pay or contribution for it .

Read More
1897 Words | 8 Pages

In this paper, I will explain Dennis Plaisted’s argument that physician assisted suicide should not be legalized on the basis of autonomy in the case that the state does not value the lives of the terminally ill if they allow the legislation to be enacted. I argue that his argument is unsound because the government does care about its people and wants to allow the terminally ill to have an alternative to suffering. First, I will explain the basis of physician assisted suicide and summarize a few of Plaisted’s arguments against it. Then, I will argue that his claim is unsound since the state is sympathetic enough to allow an alternative treatment to incurable illnesses, and that Plaisted’s theory fails in that for the legislation to work, they

Read More
1167 Words | 5 Pages

(Cowey, 2012). By focussing on the four main principles, I will discuss autonomy, the right for the individual to make their own decisions regarding their health care treatment, which in this case will also involve a close connection with immediate family

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

The physician is rendering the aid the patient requests and respecting the patient’s autonomous decision to exercise their right to

Read More
1024 Words | 5 Pages

Consent is patients’ rights because they have right to know what is happening to their life which is fundamental value in professional practice (Department of Health (DH), 2001). Dougherty and Lister (2015) state that consent is a patient’s rights to refuse or to accept a treatment. However, Dimond (2010) said that consent is a voluntarily decision which can be given orally, verbally, written or implied for example if you ask a patient to take their blood pressure and they offer their arm. Eyal (2012) also states that consent promote trust in medical procedures that people may seek and comply with medical advice and participate in medical research. Bok (2013) argues that there are problems with the trust-promoting as many patients give consent despite being to some extent distrustful.

Read More
1736 Words | 7 Pages

The dying patient no longer has quality of life, they have lost their independence, are lonely, are forced to endure inevitable pain, are publicly humiliated, are suffering immensely, and are forced to watch their loved ones grieve because of them. It is an innate Constitutional Right to choose how to die, since we all will die. There comes a point when the poking and prodding becomes too much, when the patient wants to just die in silence in the loving arms of their

Read More
870 Words | 4 Pages

Patient autonomy argues that a person’s life is their own, allowing a patient to make decisions on whether to live or die. This is seen most strongly in cases where people are suffering severe pain or disability. However, to what extend is individual autonomy to be undermined? In our current model, the guidelines for determining the competency of a patient present too many holes. Therefore, allowing life and death decisions to rest on individual autonomy rejects our society’s basic attitude or respect for

Read More
1121 Words | 5 Pages

The four core ethical principles that are called into question in the movie “Miss Evers’ Boys” are autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Autonomy refers to the right of the patient to function independently and the ability to self-direct. This means that patients are entitled to decide what will happen to them, and if deemed competent, they have the right to either consent to or refuse treatment. All nurses and healthcare personal would be required to respect the patient’s wishes, even if they do not agree with them. Beneficence is the core principle that refers to the act of ‘doing good’ and advocating for the patient.

Read More
1234 Words | 5 Pages

A controversial practice that invokes a debate over how beneficial its intentions are is the use of euthanasia. The argument switches between whether or not putting terminally ill patients to death with the assistance of a physician is justifiable and right. Legalizing the practice of euthanasia is a significant topic among many people in society, including doctors and nurses in the medical field, as it forces people to decide where to draw the line between relieving pain and simply killing. While some people see euthanasia as a way to helping a patient by eliminating their pain, it is completely rejected by others who see it as a method of killing.

Read More
1610 Words | 7 Pages

The practice of health care includes many scenarios that have to do with making adequate decisions when it comes to a patient’s life, and the way they are treated. Having an ethical code in all health care organizations is very important, because it helps health care workers with reaching a suited and ethical decision when it comes to the patient. In health care, patient will always be put first, and their autonomy will always be respected. Nevertheless, when there is a situation where a patient might be in harm, or might be making their condition worse because of the decisions they made. Health care workers will always be there to

Read More
700 Words | 3 Pages

Patients have a right to complain about the doctor's refusal to the Management. Provision of Treatment requires patient’s choice and informed consent. Even if a patient has signed a general consent clause, the patient can still refuse medical treatment or procedures. However, in exceptional or emergency situations a doctor may be legally justified in performing surgery or providing treatment without the patient's consent. The patient should be competent and capable of making such a decision to give a consent.

Read More

More about Jukka Varelius's Argument Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document