Personal Reflections on Goldman’s Arguments

Whenever I ask a question, my least favorite response is always “it depends”. I am constantly searching for the correct answer to each problem, and do not enjoy being told that, in some situations, there isn’t one. In regards to the debate of paternalism versus autonomy, the answer is quite often “it depends”. It is not possible to say that every use of medical paternalism is completely unjustified, because each situation, person, age group, motivation, and medical condition is different. Alan Goldman’s work focuses on how paternalism factors into these separate situations, showing just how complex the topic is. Goldman breaks his argument against paternalism into two sections: empirical and moral. In the empirical section, he brings up the point that it is impossible for physicians to know if patients will actually be negatively affected if they are fully informed. Physicians will not always properly calculate risk-benefit, so they should not have the power to decide for the patient, thus refuting the argument for paternalism. With this argument, though, the use of paternalism depends on the physician’s ability to understand the patient and their possible reactions. If there is a physician that is able to perfectly calculate the risk-benefit, and knows that the patient will be happier if they are kept in the dark, then paternalism would be justified. 

When focusing on the moral argument, Goldman stresses the important role that personal values play in paternalism. The fundamental outline of paternalism is based on the idea that health and prolonged life take full priority over patients’ personal preferences. Many would argue that modern medicine’s goal is to prolong life, so physicians are simply doing their jobs by doing everything to keep their patients alive. Some patients value making their own decisions more than the length of their life, though. If a physician decides to withhold medical information or move forward with treatment, the patients that value self-determination will not have an improved quality of life. Goldman concludes his moral argument by saying that these values are present because they are upheld by rational beings that deserve to make personal decisions. Taking away a person’s ability to choose can threaten their individuality. In these specific instances, paternalism does seem to be morally wrong. In individuals that do value health and long life over decision making, a physician interfering with the patients’ liberty would be valid. Paternalism is therefore an issue that depends on individual values and situations. 

Though Goldman primarily argues against it, he does acknowledge that paternalism can sometimes lead to good. There is no perfect example of an instance where paternalism should overrule autonomy, so the answer must be: “it depends”.

1 thought on “Personal Reflections on Goldman’s Arguments

  1. Kaeli Thompson

    Hey Jessi, your reflections on Goldman’s arguments against paternalism are very well thought out, cohesive, and ultimately correct in speaking to the fact that it depends on the circumstances for when paternalism should overrule a single person’s autonomy. I think Goldman’s concession that in some circumstances paternalism does lead to good, but that it should not rely on solely empirical or moral evidence, to be accurate. An important part of what Goldman is speaking to in his argument, and what your reflection lended to, is the point that autonomy is essential for people in a society to possess in order so that they may have the freedom to elect representatives/officials who pass laws the voter see’s as valuing their own preferences in life. These passed laws would then allow paternalism to be enacted in certain situations, however not as a result of a king/queen figure’s decision but rather through a collective majority agreement among people of the society. This idea, autonomy actually serving as a sort of basis for well justified and agreed upon paternalism in the best interests of most people, helps to provide further evidence for why it does depend on when paternalism or autonomy should be enacted. The question however thus arises, what exactly is enough of a consensus between the majority of a society to justify enacting paternalistic measures over personal autonomy in those circumstances when it depends?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.