Louis Lasagna Research Paper
Do No Harm
Louis Lasagna created a modern retelling of the Hippocratic oath, which has the statement “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” This brings up the question of just how much control should a person have over their medical treatment. Does an individual get to decide what happens to them or should the medical doctor have final say on their patient’s treatment? As I have worked in Naval medicine for ten years, I will share some of my thoughts on these matters.
Lisa Newton defines autonomy in the Source Book as “a union of two components. The first is the rationality or understanding; the second is freedom or “non-control”.” There are two separate ideas that correlate with the thought of autonomy. The Libertarian idea is that individual freedom is the priority. It does not matter how good or bad that individual’s choice is, only …show more content…
A doctor’s whole role in this endeavor is to make the patient informed of the best route to take regarding the healing process and insure they get taken care of to the utmost of their medical ability. If this person is unable to make that decision, whether because the person is a minor, unconscious, are deceived either by them or outside influence, or even mislead then the doctor has the right to make the choice for the patient’s best interest. If a person truly wants to get better they will listen to their doctor, or at the very least seek out another professional opinion. This can get tricky as the patient’s view of that opinion could be for holistic options or religion opinions, but for the purpose of this argument they are meant to seek another medical doctor’s opinion. It is the doctor’s responsibility to heal the sick and injured. When the patent refuses to comply, intervention must be
Louis Lasagna created a modern retelling of the Hippocratic oath, which has the statement “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” This brings up the question of just how much control should a person have over their medical treatment. Does an individual get to decide what happens to them or should the medical doctor have final say on their patient’s treatment? As I have worked in Naval medicine for ten years, I will share some of my thoughts on these matters.
Lisa Newton defines autonomy in the Source Book as “a union of two components. The first is the rationality or understanding; the second is freedom or “non-control”.” There are two separate ideas that correlate with the thought of autonomy. The Libertarian idea is that individual freedom is the priority. It does not matter how good or bad that individual’s choice is, only …show more content…
A doctor’s whole role in this endeavor is to make the patient informed of the best route to take regarding the healing process and insure they get taken care of to the utmost of their medical ability. If this person is unable to make that decision, whether because the person is a minor, unconscious, are deceived either by them or outside influence, or even mislead then the doctor has the right to make the choice for the patient’s best interest. If a person truly wants to get better they will listen to their doctor, or at the very least seek out another professional opinion. This can get tricky as the patient’s view of that opinion could be for holistic options or religion opinions, but for the purpose of this argument they are meant to seek another medical doctor’s opinion. It is the doctor’s responsibility to heal the sick and injured. When the patent refuses to comply, intervention must be