Paternalisim Vs Weak Paternalism
What Ms Ellul exhibited is known as parentalism. This term is used when an adult is treated as a child by a person who is showing authority or concern of a parent. There are two types of parentalisim, weak and strong. In weak paternalisim there is interference with others liberty, and this will prevent them from causing any harm to themselves. On the other hand, strong parentalisim is the interference with others liberty to promote the best regardless of any consent from the patient. In this case weak parentalisim is exhibited. When using parentalisim one needs to understand that the patient is autonomous and self-self-determining is having his wishes refused. “Autonomy is a term used to describe a person's or government's ability to make decisions,
…show more content…
or speak and act on their own behalf, without interference from another party.” (Study.com, 2018) In moral autonomy the person has the ability recognize and act on their own judgements about how to live life. On the other hand, psychological autonomy is the ability of a person to be competent to make his/her own decisions and the ability to reason and act rationally. When one respects autonomy, there will be respect for the dignity and worth of the person. Thus, it also implies that one should not control others but encourage the person to be more independent and responsible for themselves.
This case has two viable options available, either using the restraints or not.
According to the code of ethics, “Patients should be treated in a safe environment ensuring that actual or any potential risks are eliminated.” (Code of Practice no.13) With regards to this the code of practice states that “Physical therapists shall be trustworthy and compassionate in addressing the rights and needs of patients/clients. Physical therapists shall collaborate with patients/clients to empower them in decisions about their health care”. The meaning of this implies that a physiotherapist can override a patient’s right to self-determination only to prevent harm. Restraining the patient could result in more disturbed behaviour, which could ultimately harm the patient, or in the worst-case scenario, could cause the patient to harm the physiotherapist. Mr ellul has three viable reasons which support the use of restraints: the ignorance or impaired capacity for rational reflection of the agent, the magnitude and probability of harm that would result without the use of restraints and the ability of the patient to understand at a later time that the act of parentalisim was done for his own benefit. As stated previously, the code of ethics states that it is the right and duty of the physiotherapist to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the patient. Thus, in this case, to ensure the safety of the patient one needs to make use of the restraint. As a result, by benefiting the patient to prevent him from getting injured, there was overriding of the patient’s autonomy.
The second option would be to honour the patient’s wishes, which would make the patient happy and calm him down. However, this may lead to severe consequences of leaving him unrestrained. No restraints could also put the already nervous client in jeopardy of harming himself if he decides to stay moving around, which could lead to another
fall.
My Opinion
In conclusion, Mr curmi does not want to injure himself furthermore while walking around unattended, thus the restraints will prevent this from happening meaning that the physiotherapist no longer is violating his rights as a person. One needs to understand the importance of having a valid reason to use parentalistic behaviour on a patient and analyse if the patient would be better off with or without parentalistic action. One would argue that parentalisim is unjustified due to the patient’s autonomy is being infringed upon and the physiotherapist would not be respecting the patient’s wishes by using the restraint. Thus, it can be concluded that parentalisim can be justifiable if:
1. The patient does not have the ability to comprehend information and the ability to rationally reflect is impaired, meaning that the patient is not able to be fully autonomous.
2. The patient is at risk of being harmed unless there is interference.
3. One can assume that the patient later on with knowledge about his condition can ratify the decision of interference and using the restraint by giving consent.
or speak and act on their own behalf, without interference from another party.” (Study.com, 2018) In moral autonomy the person has the ability recognize and act on their own judgements about how to live life. On the other hand, psychological autonomy is the ability of a person to be competent to make his/her own decisions and the ability to reason and act rationally. When one respects autonomy, there will be respect for the dignity and worth of the person. Thus, it also implies that one should not control others but encourage the person to be more independent and responsible for themselves.
This case has two viable options available, either using the restraints or not.
According to the code of ethics, “Patients should be treated in a safe environment ensuring that actual or any potential risks are eliminated.” (Code of Practice no.13) With regards to this the code of practice states that “Physical therapists shall be trustworthy and compassionate in addressing the rights and needs of patients/clients. Physical therapists shall collaborate with patients/clients to empower them in decisions about their health care”. The meaning of this implies that a physiotherapist can override a patient’s right to self-determination only to prevent harm. Restraining the patient could result in more disturbed behaviour, which could ultimately harm the patient, or in the worst-case scenario, could cause the patient to harm the physiotherapist. Mr ellul has three viable reasons which support the use of restraints: the ignorance or impaired capacity for rational reflection of the agent, the magnitude and probability of harm that would result without the use of restraints and the ability of the patient to understand at a later time that the act of parentalisim was done for his own benefit. As stated previously, the code of ethics states that it is the right and duty of the physiotherapist to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the patient. Thus, in this case, to ensure the safety of the patient one needs to make use of the restraint. As a result, by benefiting the patient to prevent him from getting injured, there was overriding of the patient’s autonomy.
The second option would be to honour the patient’s wishes, which would make the patient happy and calm him down. However, this may lead to severe consequences of leaving him unrestrained. No restraints could also put the already nervous client in jeopardy of harming himself if he decides to stay moving around, which could lead to another
fall.
My Opinion
In conclusion, Mr curmi does not want to injure himself furthermore while walking around unattended, thus the restraints will prevent this from happening meaning that the physiotherapist no longer is violating his rights as a person. One needs to understand the importance of having a valid reason to use parentalistic behaviour on a patient and analyse if the patient would be better off with or without parentalistic action. One would argue that parentalisim is unjustified due to the patient’s autonomy is being infringed upon and the physiotherapist would not be respecting the patient’s wishes by using the restraint. Thus, it can be concluded that parentalisim can be justifiable if:
1. The patient does not have the ability to comprehend information and the ability to rationally reflect is impaired, meaning that the patient is not able to be fully autonomous.
2. The patient is at risk of being harmed unless there is interference.
3. One can assume that the patient later on with knowledge about his condition can ratify the decision of interference and using the restraint by giving consent.