Savulescu And Momeyer's Conceptuality: Article Analysis

Julian Savulescu and Richard W. Momeyer, wrote an article expressing their theories on informed consent being based on rational beliefs. The article constructed around Jehovah Witness beliefs causing its followers to reject blood transfusions, and how it is theoretically irrational. Both pressed the reason for irrational behavior due to the fear of violating biblical principles according to their interpretation of the scripture. Thus leading to Savulescu and Momeyer’s concussion, Jehovah Witnesses are not fully autonomous in their decision making, due to their belief system rooted in religion, rather than medical science. This suggests when patients act on their autonomy while regarding medical care, it must derive from rational beliefs as defined by commonly accepted medical practice, or it will be considered false
I believe denying patient autonomy due to opposed opinion of the norm to be unjust, and to disregard the meaning of autonomy. Autonomy is defined as “self-government, free from control”, and does not stipulate it be constrained to only rational persons. While patient autonomy does require health care providers to inform patients, it does not mandate a patient use the information. If a patient denies health care, it is their right to do so, no matter the reason. By infringing on their rights, would be to deny patient autonomy entirely. Ultimately doctors may attempt to correct what they suppose as irrational, such as refusing a potentially lifesaving blood infusion, however they cannot ignore the patient’s final decision on the matter. Doctors are not infallible; they do make mistakes which is why Malpractice suits exist. Furthermore, medical treatments are not always straightforward and Doctors sometime disagree with the proper course of action. The ultimate choice must remain with