Doctors Should Intervene

Doctors Should Intervene

            The article of interest, dubbed “Why Doctors Should Intervene,” reflects on what was covered on one of the topics in bioethics (Ackerman 1). From the introductory section, Ackerman’s discussion relates to what was covered under paternalism and patient autonomy. Paternalism was depicted as the action that restricts one’s liberty or autonomy, intending to promote his/her good. Additionally, patient autonomy is outlined as the right of patients to decide on personal medical care without the influence or interference of their care providers. However, the article takes a different approach while discussing the concept of patient autonomy with the argument that physicians should, to some extent, disregard the concept and intervene. The main theme of the article is entrenched on the claim that absolute observation of patient autonomy is not effective. It is on this aspect that the text aims to support the claim that true respect to autonomy necessitates the physician’s intervention to deviate from the patient’s preferences.

While the objective of the relationship between a patient and the physician is to resolve the physical, psychological, social, and cognitive constraints, Ackerman believes such cannot be achieved if the physician is not involved as the patient is left to have absolute freedom. Ackerman alludes that while the requirements attached to the autonomy of the patient are fundamental, the underlying moral, ethical considerations that place an exclusive focus on factors such as patient’s rights and confidentiality are more troublesome (Ackerman 1). The article considers the notion of respect for autonomy to be emphasizing on noninterference as its critical characteristic. It is on this aspect that Ackerman states that the noninterference fails to respect autonomy since it does consider the transformation effects of illness. It is an assertion that he supports by claiming that autonomous is not yielded out of isolation, but a concept that emanates from deliberation and reflection. During illness, Ackerman argues that the body is left between reality and the happenings hence obstructing one’s choice and actions. At this point, he suggests that a patient lacks the skills and knowledge that are prerequisites to gain relief of suffering and pain.

Ackerman states that depression results in erroneous decisions since a patient is not in harmony with his/her plan hence the need for the physician intervention (Ackerman 2). To support the claim, he gives an example of a woman who was suffering from ovarian cancer. On her going back to the hospital for metastasis, the doctor realizes there are complications, and she required an artificial respiratory, which makes her depressed. Due to depression, she refused to get further treatment, and the medical staff stalled for some time. Ackerman adds that fear is also a factor that cripples the ability of a patient to make the right decision hence the need for the physician to intervene (Ackerman 3). To support the claim, Ackerman gave an example of a patient who was diagnosed with a cerebral tumor. The patient was to be subjected to a life-saving surgery but declined as he feared the consequences of the process. Later, the family agreed to have the surgery, but the patient died of complications due to delayed surgery. His fears prevented the doctors from conducting the surgery at the appropriate time, which shows the importance of their interference with patient autonomy.

Ackerman adds that the doctors should intervene or interfere with the patient autonomy as social constraints deter the patient from acting upon their preferences (Ackerman 3). He gives an example of a teenage boy who had a metastasized rhabdomyosarcoma and required to be subjected to a clinical trial that would involve drug testing. The parents of the teenager ignored the severity of their son’s condition and insisted that their belief in God would save him. The teenager agreed to his parent’s wish and returned home but unfortunately died. Conversely, the same scenarios do happen due to cultural and social expectations.

First, I would like to support the position of Ackerman that absolute observation of patient autonomy does not translate to the respect of the autonomy necessity. I believe the statement is factual as it contradicts to the role and responsibility of the physician. For instance, the role of the doctor is to apply the procedures and principles of medicine to treat, care for, and prevent injury, illness, or disease as well as maintain both mental and physical health. Whenever the patient visits the hospital, he seeks the advice expertise of the doctor to improve his health. Thus, the suggestion and expectation that the doctor should not interfere with the patient autonomy contradict to the doctor’s job description. Also, health care professionals are expected to maintain a sound relationship with patients. Such a relationship can only be upheld if the patients perceive the input of the physician is positively impacting his health, and that can only happen when the physician is given a chance to help the patient decide.

Second, I support Ackerman’s position that the concept of respecting and observing autonomy does not consider the transformation effects of a disease. It is a statement that identifies a gap in the concept of autonomy as it fails to consider scenarios that might have adverse consequences. I believe that the autonomy concept is not a bad idea, but it should be scrapped from the health field as it has the potential to make conditions worse and difficult to treat. The public health should practice patient autonomy in the context that Ackerman has defined autonomy. He defines it as a concept that manifests through reflection and deliberation hence disputing the concept of isolation. Based on the definition, it means that patients and care providers should always deliberate and reflects on everything that pertains to the health and wellbeing of the patient.

Third, the concept of autonomy is subjected to different factors that lead to the impediment of a rational decision. It is in this aspect I support Ackerman’s suggestion that the caregivers should interfere with a patient’s autonomy as it is in their interest. For instance, whenever an individual gets sick and visits a hospital, he will be depicted as a patient as he seeks to depend on the skills and knowledge of the doctor. At this point, Ackerman argues the patient’s body finds itself in the middle of reality and the consequences of the illness hence making it hard to make the right decision. The patient lacks the skills and expertise that can relieve pain or suffering and relies on the autonomy interference of the doctor. Based on the example of the teenager, the older woman, and the patient diagnosed with a cerebral tumor, it is evident that the fear, depression, and social constraints affect decision making in patients, which leads to further complications and deaths. Thus, caregivers should intervene or interfere with patient autonomy for the sake of the patient’s wellbeing.

Work Cited

Ackerman, Terrence F. “Why doctors should intervene.” Hastings Center Report (1982): 14-17.