Dr. Cameron's Ethical Issues In Health Care

Dr. Cameron’s ethical conflict involves a dilemma between the patient’s beneficence through medical paternalism, and he patient’s right and ability of autonomous decision making. Due to the circumstances of this case, I consider that the respect for autonomy outweighs the doctor’s intentions of beneficence, or more specifically medical paternalism. I will start to support my argument by stating that the person that is directly affected by the problem in question is the patient, which is why his decision has to be considered the most while solving this ethical issue. Moreover, the patient has the right of knowing all of the treatments and side effects he could possibly be exposed to, in order to maintain a healthy, and at the same time, a
Since there is only 3-5% reversible chance that the side effects of the cheaper drug actually occur, Dr. Cameron could definitely convince Mr. Wilson to try the treatment for a short period of time first to see how well it works. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the patient’s ability to choose the best treatment for him if the doctor starts by stating the unlikely and reversible side-effect of impotence that the drug causes. To reinforce my last statement, the doctor would also in some sense break the ethical principle of justice by denying the patient the information about the more expensive dug based on the assumption that the patient wouldn’t be able to afford the
This being said, the main concern with medical paternalism is the fact that such directly conflicts with the respect for patients’ autonomy, which would be the case if Dr. Cameron decides to prescribe Mr. Wilson the less expensive drug without telling him the side effects. From a utilitarian point of view, paternalism could outweigh the respect for autonomy in cases in which the maximum good is achieved by going against someone’s autonomy; however, in the case discussed in this paper, Mr. Wilson is the only person that is directly affected by the decision of what treatment to receive, which is why it would be unacceptable to omit information about something that affects him. Moreover, philosopher John Stuart Mill defended the idea of respect for autonomy over paternalism stating that the only purpose by which power can be used to conflict with someone’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. This being said, not listing the different treatments to Mr. Wilson, and the unlikely side effects, would mean disrespecting his ability to rationally make a decision that would cause him the less considerable harm. In other words, what Mill’s calls “no causing harm” grants Mr. Wilson the right to refuse treatment if he finds that erectile dysfunction potentially harms his everyday life in an