Onora O Neill's Criticism Of Informed Consent As Being About Respecting Autonomy
Health Professions and Society 1A SAQs
1. What is the core of Onora O’Neill’s criticism of understanding informed consent as being about respecting autonomy?
Onara O’Neill argues that interpreting informed consent as being about respecting autonomy can lead individuals into misunderstanding its meaning. Generally, autonomy is perceived as an individual’s independence; their freedom from external influence or control. However, it is O’Neill’s belief that this form of autonomy is not directly translated into the medical setting. Those in medicine explain informed consent to be a method of respecting the autonomous choices of their patients. However, O’Neill suggests that the decisions made by patients about their healthcare are, in reality, …show more content…
Generally speaking, paternalism is the interference in the life of an individual, justified by the welfare and/or interests of the person being treated paternalistically. One form of interference is that with the person’s access to information, for which there is scope in medical practices. It is the aim of doctors to provide their patients with the best possible care so that they are able to maintain a state of health. However, to achieve this, doctors are sometimes required to guide their patients in the decision-making process and act paternalistically. This could involve lying to, misinforming, or intentionally providing their patients with inadequate information to lead them into agreeing to a treatment that they believe is best for their patient. For example, if a patient presenting with hypertension were to refuse undertaking or continuing their treatment, it can be detrimental to their health. In such circumstances, doctors may mislead the patient by, in this example, exaggerating the consequences of treatment refusal, and say that it would undoubtedly result in a stroke to coerce them into receiving the treatment. While the doctor knows that there is no guarantee in this outcome, their act of paternalism is justified by their belief and or knowledge that it is ultimately in the patient’s best interest to undergo the treatment. In situations such as these, there is scope for paternalism, as it can be crucial in preserving or improving the health of
1. What is the core of Onora O’Neill’s criticism of understanding informed consent as being about respecting autonomy?
Onara O’Neill argues that interpreting informed consent as being about respecting autonomy can lead individuals into misunderstanding its meaning. Generally, autonomy is perceived as an individual’s independence; their freedom from external influence or control. However, it is O’Neill’s belief that this form of autonomy is not directly translated into the medical setting. Those in medicine explain informed consent to be a method of respecting the autonomous choices of their patients. However, O’Neill suggests that the decisions made by patients about their healthcare are, in reality, …show more content…
Generally speaking, paternalism is the interference in the life of an individual, justified by the welfare and/or interests of the person being treated paternalistically. One form of interference is that with the person’s access to information, for which there is scope in medical practices. It is the aim of doctors to provide their patients with the best possible care so that they are able to maintain a state of health. However, to achieve this, doctors are sometimes required to guide their patients in the decision-making process and act paternalistically. This could involve lying to, misinforming, or intentionally providing their patients with inadequate information to lead them into agreeing to a treatment that they believe is best for their patient. For example, if a patient presenting with hypertension were to refuse undertaking or continuing their treatment, it can be detrimental to their health. In such circumstances, doctors may mislead the patient by, in this example, exaggerating the consequences of treatment refusal, and say that it would undoubtedly result in a stroke to coerce them into receiving the treatment. While the doctor knows that there is no guarantee in this outcome, their act of paternalism is justified by their belief and or knowledge that it is ultimately in the patient’s best interest to undergo the treatment. In situations such as these, there is scope for paternalism, as it can be crucial in preserving or improving the health of