Varelius argues that a patient’s autonomy that is refusing treatment should not be respected and treated anyways. To do this, he uses the subjective and objective theories of wellbeing to weigh the possible options. Accepting the subjective theory of wellbeing would take in account the patients favors and disfavors, thus a person’s good is based on her own decisions. The patient is entitled to be the one that weighs out the options of being treated or not being treated. Therefore, accepting prudential subjectivism would then commit you to respecting the patient’s decision not to be treated. Accepting an objective theory of wellbeing would allow you treat the patient because it says the patient is not the ultimate judge of what is good or bad for her. Varelius stats that “if the autonomy this person had if she continued living is objectively good for the person to the extent that it overweighs other competing values, then the patient’s decision not to be treated should be obeyed” (p.167).
Analysis Varelius’ argument hinges on the idea
…show more content…
He supports his argument very well by providing information on the other side of the argument. Once he explains the other views, he then explains their limitations and why his view is more correct. I think by doing this he shows that he has deeply thought about and understands both sides. He shows this strongly when he replies to possible objections. An objection that he replies to is that by treating a patient that wishes not to be treated, is requiring a patient to live a life that she does not want to live. Varelius argues that treating the patient based on objective prudential values is better for the patient than respecting her subjective values. Also, when the patient is presented with the idea, she will realize that her decision was based on false reasoning and she will change her mind. This makes Varelius paper much stronger and much more likely to