The Principle of Beneficence vs Patient Autonomy and Rights

Topics: Medicine, Alternative medicine, Physician Pages: 9 (3228 words) Published: December 20, 2010
Special Feature – Medical Ethics Essay

Singapore Med J 2002 Vol 43(3) : 148-151

Deconstructing Paternalism – What Serves the Patient Best? N H S S Tan (This Essay won the Singapore Medical Association Ethics Essay Award (Non-medical Undergraduate Category) in 2001.)

ABSTRACT On the motion that “medical paternalism serves the patient best”, this essay reviews current arguments on medical paternalism vs. patient autonomy. Citing medico-ethical texts and journals and selected real-life applications like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and the advanced medical directive (AMD), the essay argues that medical paternalism cannot serve the patient best insofar as current debates limit themselves to “who” wields the decision-making power. Such debates side-step “what” the patient’s best interests are. The essay further argues through the case of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and acupuncture in particular, that the current dominant Western school of thought excludes other forms of “alternative” treatment through medical paternalism. Singapore Med J 2002 Vol 43(3):148-151

N H S S Tan Second-year mass communication student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic Correspondence to: Noel Hidalgo Tan Suwi Siang Email: noelbynature@

Although probably not written by Hippocrates (c. 460 – c. 477 BC) himself, the Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest, most binding code of conduct today. The oath expresses the aspirations of the physician, and sets the ethical precedent by spelling out the physician’s responsibilities to the patient and the medical profession. Today, the Hippocratic Oath has been adopted and adapted world-wide; all physicians take the oath in some form or another. In Singapore, the doctor who undertakes the Singapore Medical Council’s Physician’s Pledge promises to “make the health of my patient my first consideration” and “maintain due respect for human life” (pars. 4, 9). The primary concept behind the oath is the principle of beneficence, which is operationalised in the original oath as the resolve to serve “for the benefit of the sick according to (the physician’s) ability and judgement” (cited in Mappes & DeGrazia, 1996; p.59). The principle of beneficence, indeed the over-emphasis of it, also led to medical paternalism or the physician’s prerogative to act

on his or her best judgement for the patient. R S Downie observed, “The pathology of beneficence is paternalism, or the tendency to decide for individuals what they ought to decide form themselves” (cited in 1996; p.5). More often than not, medical paternalism tends to focus more on the patient’s care and outcomes rather than the patient’s needs and rights. In recent years, medical paternalism has come under fire through the concept of patient autonomy, or the patient’s right to choose and refuse treatment. While the debate between autonomy and paternalism still remains unresolved, paternalists argue that “maximum patient benefit” can be achieved only when the doctor makes the final medical decision (Weiss, 1985; p.184). The pro-autonomy stance maintains that “benevolent paternalism is considered inappropriate in a modern world where the standard for the client-professional relationship is more like a meeting between equals than like a father-child relationship” (Tuckett, Boulton, Olson & Williams, cited in Nessa & Malterud, 1998; p.394). This essay argues that medical paternalism cannot serve the patient best insofar as current debates sidestep the principle of beneficence in favour of decision-making power and medical paternalism under the current dominant Western school of thought excludes other forms of treatment. Current debate surrounding paternalism has always been centred on the issues of autonomy and paternalism and reduced further into a power struggle between the doctor and patient. This polarisation of the decision-making power has distracted the medico-philosophical debate. Today’s traditional medical values like “pain is bad” and...

References: 1. Agasthian T. Advance directive – A surgical viewpoint. Singapore Medical Journal (Online serial), 1997; 38(4). Retrieved June 23, 2001 from the World Wide Web: 3804e2.htm 2. Breeding J. Electroshock and informed consent. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 2000; 40:65-79. 3. Cassel E. Therapeutic relationship: contemporary medical perspective. In W. Reich (Ed), Encyclopaedia of Ethics (p.1675). New York: Macmillan. 1978. 4. Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? British Medical Journal, 1999; 319:719-20. 5. Downie RS. Professional ethics and business ethics. In S.A.M. McLean (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Law, Medicine and Ethics. Vermont: Dartmouth. 1996. 6. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Gwyn R and Grol R. Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars. British Medical Journal 1999; 319:753-6. 7. Feng PH. Medicine in the digital era – Opportunities and challenges. Singapore Medical Journal, 2000; 41:522-4. 8. Kao C. $175m plan for Chinese medicine. The Straits Times, 9 September 2001; p.3. 9. Lai YM and Ko SM. What you need to know – Assessment of suicide risk. Singapore Medical Journal (Online serial), 1999; 40(5). Retrieved June 23, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http:// 10. Lee KO and Quah TC. Living, dying, death and advance directives. Singapore Medical Journal (Online serial), 1997; 38(4). Retrieved June 23, 2001 from the World Wide Web: articles/3804e1.htm 11. Mappes TA and DeGrazia D. Biomedical ethics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 1996. 12. Matthews E. Can paternalism be modernised? Journal of Medical Ethics 1986; 12:133-5. 13. Nessa J and Malterud K. Tell me what’s wrong with me: a discourse analysis approach to the concept of patient autonomy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1998; 24:394-400. 14. Pollard BJ. Autonomy and paternalism in medicine. The Medical Journal of Australia, 1993; 159:797-802. 15. Ruddick W. Medical Ethics (Online), 1998. Retrieved June 23, 2001 from the World Wide Web: ruddick/papers/medethics.html 16. Singer JA. Acupuncture, a brief introduction (Online), 2000. Retrieved September 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.acupuncture. com/Acup/Acupuncture.htm 17. Singapore Medical Council Physician’s Pledge. (n.d.). SMA Centre for Medical Ethics and Professionalism (Online). Retrieved June 23, 2001 from the World Wide Web: medical_ethics/MEA2/MEA2A.html 18. Sullivan RJ, Menapace LW and White RM. Truth-telling and patient diagnoses. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2001; 27:192-7. 19. Taylor E. Mind-body medicine and alternative therapies at harvard: Is this the reintroduction of psychology into general medical practice? Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2000; 6(6):32-4. 20. Traditional Chinese Medicine. Ministry of Health (Online), 1995. Retrieved 8 September, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http:// 21. Waltman AB. Alternative medicine goes mainstream. Psychology Today, May/April 2000; 38-9. 22. Weiss GB. Paternalism modernised. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1985; 11:184-7.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Principles of beneficence and non-maleficence
  • Medical Paternalism or Patient Autonomy Essay
  • Medical Paternalism or Patient Autonomy Essay
  • patient rights Essay
  • Essay about Patient Rights
  • Essay about Patient Bill of Rights
  • Autonomy Essay
  • Autonomy- the Right of a Client to Self Determination Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free