Paternalism And Paternalistic Libertarianism

Paternalism And Paternalistic Libertarianism
Paternalistic libertarianism, defined as "the idea that it is both possible and legitimate for private and
public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice, as well as the
implementation of that idea." (Wikipedia). The term paternalistic often takes the idea that someone
is looked after by another as a child may by their parent in a way that is for the looked after
individuals benefit. So together, with the term libertarian, it suggests that the freedom of choice is
given with the aid of an entity whom guides at a groups discretion the most beneficial choice.
Ideally, it's a concept that can mean anyone is informed of the best choices while maintaining the
ability to refuse. In all it's a fantastic idea that could and would work for many situations. What are
the implications of this ideology when it comes to the continued problem of organ donation
shortages that plague the modern world and from what of the current systems in place can we take
away to reduce if not solve the issue? The system that paternalistic libertarianism hints at for organ
donation is called "opt–out" which in short means the default for donation is an automatic approval
for post–mortem organ harvesting unless individuals request otherwise. This policy raises many
questions and possible problems, including religious and practical issues. One problem, for instance,
is that this system in many European countries hasn't fixed but has helped bridge the gap. 'The
Week' states
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Conservatism as a Tension between Paternalism and...
Conservatism as a Tension between Paternalism and Libertarianism There are many different strands
of conservatism within the ideology, the most significant of which in modern terms are paternalism
and libertarianism. This conflict can be illustrated by the rival traditions of one–nation conservatism
and New Right, or in particular neoliberal, conservatism.
The basic idea of paternalism is to have authority over people for their own good. Whereas
continental conservatives in the nineteenth century opposed any change, an Anglo–American
tradition began with Edmund Burke which was more cautious, modest and pragmatic – these type of
conservatives were willing to 'change in order to conserve'. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Disraeli believed in an organic society held together by duty and responsibility, and was responsible
for the Second Reform Act which gave the working class the vote and also improved housing
conditions and hygiene. This is often seen as a form of Tory welfarism. One nationism reached its
peak in the 1950s and 1960s when conservative governments in the UK promoted social welfare, in
stark contrast to later, New Right conservative governments such as the Thatcher Government
(1979–90). In the 50s one–nation conservatism was seen as a 'middle way' between 'laissez–faire'
liberalism and socialist state planning. Therefore, paternalistic conservatism could be seen as the
way of moderation.
Libertarian conservatism is very different. Libertarianism sees liberty as a priority over all other
values, and many conservative ideas are libertarian in that they support the greatest possible
economic liberty and the least possible regulation of social life. Libertarian conservatism differs
from liberalism as it advocates these values alongside a more conservative social philosophy based
on authority and duty. This is linked to the ideas of Edmund Burke.
This tradition of conservatism is strongest in the UK and USA, where classic liberal ideas were
strongest. Free trade in commercial affairs is seen as desirable, along with a competitive, self–
regulating market economy.

Holden Paternalism Philosophy
Transcentalistic views and the philosophy was a big influence on literature and is a movement that
also impacted youth back in the early to mid 1800's. This trend demonstrated by a number of well–
known authors, poets, and activists, helped push the idea of nonconformity, self–reliance,
authenticity, and to be in touch with nature as if it were a big part of your life. Well this is a common
occurrence not usually seen or recognized and that's exactly how Holden felt; a young,
nonconformist, who struggled to find his true potential in a society he feels he does notdoesn't
belong in. A young boy who is trying to find his way of life, struggles with his own beliefs and the
"phony" people in his everyday life. The only person he feels best around

Paternalism In Australia
Aboriginal and Torres Islander people enjoyed a simple, happy, and tranquil life (Eckermann et. al.,
2010) until they became the target of colonialism (Sherwood, 2013). With the conviction that
Indigenous Australians are useless and inadequate, the Europeans took control over their territory
intending to eradicate their culture (Sherwood, 2013). Along with colonialization, institutional
racism and the principles of whiteness became strongly embedded in the society as seen throughout
the Indigenous people's history. This is mainly due to power imbalance intrinsic to the invaders.
The enactment of protection policy based on paternalism (Forsyth, 2007) restricted and alienated
Indigenous Australians from their land to safeguard the welfare of the Europeans (Sherwood, 2013).
Best and Fredericks (2014) further illustrated the social effects of this policy stating the
inaccessibility to health service and decrease of employment for the Indigenous people. They were
also placed in overcrowded groups with the objective of smoothing their dying ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This strategy presented the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a sense of independence to
manage their own wellbeing (Eckermann et. al., 2010). Contradictory to this era's description,
Forsyth (2007) stated that this policy was not fully employed. This is complemented by Sherwood
(2013) stating the impression that self–determination does not really concern the liberty of the
Indigenous community. Access to health services were generally prejudiced and unjust (Best &
Fredericks, 2014). To this period, the problems of Indigenous Australians on health, education, and
employment were not resolved.
It is noticeable from protection policy to self–determination that the social determinants of health
affecting the Indigenous Australians is dependent on the system created by the European
government. Today, the consequences conveyed by this historical events continue to

Paternalism In Bound For Wedlock
In her book Bound for Wedlock, Tera Hunter emphasizes that slaves "were flogged by the rhetoric
of paternalism." Such paternalistic assault on the slaves not only "shifted the blame for their failures
away from the beneficiaries of their degradation," but it also destabilized a slave's self–expression,
self–thought, and self–identity (60). As is illustrated in Ida Adkins' interview, burdened with
physical and mental manipulations, a slave's psyche, acting as a motive force, inadvertently
responded and inclined itself toward the manipulative source, thereby increasing the slave's
dependence on the master. Ida Adkins's seemingly favorability of her master over her father
invigorates the fact that her psyche was mediating her thoughts, emotions, and responses to the
manipulative social construct in such a way as to provide even more power to the oppressor. Adkins
describes her father, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
She merely characterizes her father according to his work in the plantation and not to any emotional
connection she might have had with him. In great contrast, Adkins emphatically points out that she
liked her master, Master Frank, whom the slave children, including Adkins, referred to as 'Big
Pappy', for he would often give the children candy from his trips to Raleigh (13). This emotional
dichotomy in Adkins' relationship between the two men juxtaposes the assertions Heather Andrea
Williams makes in her work Help Me to Find My People. Williams emphasizes that "enslaved and
freed people...placed emotional value in their nuclear families" and longed and hoped to maintain
those familial ties (10). However,

Autonomy vs Paternalism
Focus: Discuss the advantages and disadvantages on autonomy and paternalism.
Decision–making would be so much easier if we all maintained our autonomy in making the
decision, however, because our decisions do not always abide by autonomistic values paternalistic
intervention must occur. The purpose of autonomy is to allow us to choose to do things that affect
only ourselves and does not negatively affect those around us. Unfortunately, many choices do,
whether we know it or not, involve those in our environment. Paternalism is in place to protect the
rights that are in our best interest and that will benefit us in the long run. Paternalistic intervention
occurs when decisions are no longer in our best interests. If the decision ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Secondhand smoke kills more nonsmokers than firsthand smoke kills smokers. The choice to smoke
becomes an addictive habit, which kills your autonomy. You do not have the choice to stop anymore.
Paternalism is in place to look out for and enforce what is in our best interest, whether they are
choices we would or would not make. If decisions we make now are likely to be regretted in the
future and are more likely to be irreversible, paternalistic intervention is there to step in and aid the
decision. For example, someone chooses to drop out of school at a young age. That person will
eventually regret this decision because they will find it hard to get a job with limited education, and
also find it virtually impossible to put themselves back through school with limited funds to do so.
This situation is a justified situation for paternalism to step in. Paternalism is mainly used in large
decisions in people's lives, decisions that involve high stakes. The advantages of having paternalism
in place is that in the long run, with paternalistic intervention, our decisions will be better made.
Paternalism is used by officials when make public policy. They look at your surface preferences and
judge them on a standard of deeper preferences when configuring limitations and freedoms. There
are, however, four types of preferences that prevent paternalistic intervention. They are relevant,
settled, preferred, and your own preferences. As

Essay On Paternalism
Is the State justified in restricting individuals' access to drugs in order to prevent them from harming
themselves?
The state justifies its authority in restricting individuals' access to drugs through the liberty–limiting
principle of paternalism. By paternalism I am referring to hard paternalism because information on
drugs are made widely available so individual are aware of the harm. This essay will argue that the
state is not justified in this paternalistic approach because paternalism is incompatible with personal
autonomy and is significant to an individual's freedom to act as they wish according to their values.
The essay will regard drugs as drugs that are banned and criminalised in most political institutions
such as marijuana and cocaine. I will appeal to the implications of accepting paternalism towards
drugs on the subsequent action that must be taken towards other potential. This will highlight the
incompatibility between personal autonomy and paternalism. In order to prove the significance of
autonomy I will use the principles of Frankfurt and Dworkin. Then I will appeal to the ethics of
utilitarianism due to the underlying consequential motive of paternalism to address counter
argument by ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If we accept these two premises as principles then it follows that anything that could potentially
cause individuals to harm themselves that they may overlook but are aware if the potential harm, it
is the state's duty to prevent this harm. Consequently the state should similarly be justified in
restricting access to fatty foods, alcohol, and cigarettes – due to this same principle of paternalism.
But, it doesn't and natural moral inclinations based on our attitude towards the criminalization of
drugs seem to justify this bias. However, I will prove that this reasoning is

Kant And Paternalism Analysis
Kant would definitely not endorse a paternalistic view. Paternalism is deciding for a person for their
own good. Kant argues that a lie is "merely an intentionally false declaration towards another man...
for it always injures another; if not individual, yet mankind generally (Vaughn 148). In the practice
of medicine, there are instances where the truth would be better kept from the patients. However,
Kant would not believe in doing this because he believes that we do not have the duty to lie even if
it is to prevent harm to others. Patients are entitled to their autonomy and lying to a patient
disrespects such ability to make decisions without the input of another person. Kant says that a lie
always causes an injury even if the person has

Paternalism And Boxing Essay
The violent sport of boxing has been commonly seen as immoral due to its violent nature. Many
studies have looked into the physical impacts of participating in boxing and have found that the risks
may not be worth the reward, but when compared to other sports, boxing is relatively similar in
violent nature. Between 1945 and 1981, 339 individuals died while partaking in the sport of boxing
(Cohen, 1984). When looking at boxers head scans, 41% of athletes had anomalies in the brain,
where in other sports, only 14% of athletes had brain anomalies (Cohen, 1984). Boxers all scored
lower in intelligence tests compared to other athletes (Cohen, 1984). The main question being
extrapolated from this evidence, is how can society continue to allow ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This concept is commonly introduced to sport because many times boxers do not have the mental
capacity, age, or competence to consent to boxing, therefore many believe that a paternalistic figure
needs to assist with decision making. "One would believe, in this case that the law should interfere
for the good of the persons involved, in a way that it acts to ensure that there are health warnings on
cigarette packages" (Davis, 1993, p.49). To further discuss this notion, discourses surrounding
paternalism need to be examined in consideration to boxing. Paternalism is defined as the
interference of liberty for what is believed to be for the own good of the individual. This
interventionism looks out for the safety of both boxers and the community and therefore looks out
for the better good of the community as a communitivistic approach. An athletes community,
meaning the people who surround the sport of boxing, can takeover in cases where it feels like
everyone is being 'harmed' in some sense of the word. The reason why communities believe that
boxing is worse off than other violent sports is because of its inherently violent nature. Sports such
as football, and hockey do not base their fundamental sporting rules around violence. As boxing is a
largely viewed sport, this inherent violence can be familiarized with the audience as an act that is
okay and acceptable, illustrating that children and adults will walk out of the match thinking that
violence is morally justified. As boxing is so adamantly available to the public, on television and in
the ring; it can prescribe an attitude of unsafe behavior and growing norms surrounding the
acceptance of violence in general, not pertaining to sport. This point proves that individuals are very
intertwined with community and traditional ways that free

Effectiveness of Goldman’s the Refutation of Medical...
Bioethics
Effectiveness of Goldman's The Refutation of Medical Paternalism In his essay, The Refutation of
Medical Paternalism, Alan Goldman states his argument against a strong doctor–patient role
differentiation, in which the doctor may act against a patients' immediate will in order to carry
treatment in the patients' best interest. Goldman frames his entire argument around the single
assumption that a person's freedom to decide his future is the most important and fundamental right
as he claims "the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not
to be sacrificed for the sake of them."[1] He claims that the majority of people would agree that they
are the best judges of their own self–interest ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To argue the first premise, he appeals to common knowledge that doctors hold their occupations
because they are more knowledgeable in a medical context on the options for improving health and
longevity. With this in mind, he then establishes that individuals who consult physicians do so in
order to prolong their life and improve their well–being. By establishing these foundational premises
for paternalism in a medical context, Goldman can now argue that given a patient that is determined
to be acting out of line with his true values and his actions might result in harm that is severe,
certain, and irreversible, it is the physician's professional to override the patients' immediate rights
in order to preserve that patients' more long–term desires. But how can the physician determine
whether the patient is acting in line with his true values in the case of withholding medical
information from the patient? Goldman brings up a more controversial situation in which the
physician effectively deceives the patient by withholding information pertaining to the patients'
medical condition from the patient himself. He maintains that the right to be told the truth is not
innate, and just as in the case of coercion, it must be determined whether the information might be
detrimental to the patients' health directly or whether it might affect

Essay on Paternalism in Bram Stoker's Dracula
Paternalism in Bram Stoker's Dracula
Paternalism is the domination of a society by a male or parental figure that leads or governs much
like the way a father would direct his family. In Victorian society, the idea of paternalism was
prevalent. The idea was also frequently used as a motif in western literature. Bram Stoker's novel
Dracula, published in 1897, depicts a paternalistic society through a repression of the female sex and
a continuous exaltation of the domineering male sex. Stoker communicates this idea through an
abundant use of prominent male characters, the presence of merely two women, who are each
extremely suppressed, either sexually or intellectually, and the constant exaltation of the male sex
over ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Each holds a high position in the society; Seward and Van Helsing are acclaimed doctors, Lord
Godalming comes from an affluent family, and Harker is a solicitor.
Van Helsing however, is seen as the chief paternal figure. He acts as the leader of the men and the
architect of the plot to root out and remove the threat Count Dracula brings. He also cares for those
who are weak in the novel, as a father would care for his frail child. When Mina and Lucy are seen
as infected, frail, and vulnerable, he is there to console and to try to strengthen them. Mina and
Lucy, once victimized by Dracula, develop wounds that symbolize their infection and vulnerability,
but Van Helsing stays by their side to protect them. He even refers to Mina as "my child" (Stoker
309). When Lucy is extremely ill, he speaks to her as a father would, seen in the quote, "Now, little
miss, here is your medicine. Drink it off, like a good child" (Stoker 131). Van Helsing is constantly
concerned with those who are below him and he acts consistently as a sturdy and rational male.
Paternalism also has a great influence on the behavior of females. Dracula is an excellent illustration
of a paternalistic society because of its general absence of female characters and the almost total
dominance of the male characters. This dominance leads to

Paternalism Theory
In Philosophical Dilemmas, it stated that paternalist likes other people to make decisions for you.
For an example a wise elder, or moral leader, or an expert, or some elite group understands what is
best another person better the other know them self. Some people don't understand when someone is
harm or hurt by another person. People should live there life not hurting another person they make
the other person feel good a about there self. Another argument is that people do things that make
them happy about them self. If someone comes and hurt them because they are not liking what that
person is doing, they could hurt the person mentality and emotionally. Adding majority to the
society will help people realize that what you are doing to the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
You can get caught up doing drugs and the years go on and realize that you messed up in the past.
Or some people think the prostitution is the right direction for them which is illegal to sell your body
to give someone else pleasure. This is harming yourself and the moral that you believe in and
because people are going judge you with what you are going with your life. Another thing that could
you is how you are doing in school have a bad grade would make feel terrible about yourself and it
could affect what college you are trying to get into. Many colleges and university have a "speech
codes" this code let students what to say and what not to say. The students cannot say anything
offensive to Native Americans, Latinos, immigrants, homosexuals, handicapped people, overweight
people, women, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, and many others. If the students make a rude
joke of one of the group they will be expelled from the school. They are forcing student to conform
to their own moral rules in speech and thoughts. I am Hindu so that making a rude joke is hurtful to
me and it would make the environment uncomfortable and that feeling will be hard to be

Bioethics And Paternalism
I cannot agree more that in situations like these, bioethics must take on a paternalistic approach.
While I usually feel anything overtly paternalistic can undermine ethics, it does have significant
value in certain cases. In the example you provide of the 18 year old adolescent wishing to die rather
than lose her hair, I would affirm that this is a shining instance where paternalism is needed.
Dworkin (2014) offers that paternalism helps question how a person "should be treated when they
are less than fully rational" (paragraph one). It would go without much opposition that the
adolescent in your example is not fully rational. It is at this point where medicine needs to project a
more paternalistic approach. I would contend that this is where

Absolutism Vs Paternalism
The idea of industrial democracy is not new. Before the industrial era under feudalism, enterprises
were small and every enterprise had a family spirit between the owner and the worker who worked
together and there was a direct and paternalistic consultation between the two. However with time
the industrial revolution started and the sizes of the enterprises and the numerical strength of the
workers also grew larger and larger and it was not possible for the owners to have direct and
informal consultation with the workers. The employers also started feeling less responsible for those
who worked for them and the workers were regarded as one of the factor of production. The old
paternalistic attitude towards their workers gave away to the mechanization ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
It was mainly during this period when the workers became conscious and aware that they belonged
to a different class and started to take action against the industrial conditions and the new capitalist
power. Workers from cotton mills and coalmines in England and the weaver from Switzerland called
for a strike in 1808 to get relief from starvation of wages and crippling conditions of work.
Intolerant conditions for work gave birth to various social and labour movements and for a demand
to reform the existing capitalist and create a new society. During this period demand for
democratization increased and the workers and people stared demanding for democratization not
only in their workplace but also in schools, university, churches and other social institutions. The
demand for democratization will bring equal participation and reduce the conflicts between the
management and the workers and it would also benefit the workplace and improve workers morale,
develop human potential, increase production and bring industrial harmony and peace. The
influence of the movements for promoting industrial democracy gave birth to the formation of trade
unions. Industrial unionism emerged and it organized all industrial workers to overthrow the
capitalist system and carry on with the production process without having the rulers to rule over
them and their wage

Advocating Paternalism
Case Study
The patient is Bob (name has been changed to protect confidentiality), a 15–year–old boy with
leukemia who is taken care of by the nursing team, including myself in the oncology department of
a general hospital. Bob was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of eleven years old and has been
receiving treatment, consented by his parents ever since then.
Bob was presented in the emergency one day with anemia and thrombocytopenia. Bob had several
admissions over a two–month period for various reasons. On the last admission Bob and his parents
were told that he may only have 4–6 weeks to live. Bob's parents insisted on continuing
chemotherapy for Bob in the hopes that he would be cured.
During an afternoon shift, I was administering Bob's usual medications and was asking him how he
was feeling. He then told me that he was very tired and wanted to stop chemotherapy and die as he
has accepted his condition and that death is imminent in his case. He also verbalized that his parents
did not want to let him stop chemotherapy despite his requests as they said he was 'too young'. Bob
then requested if I could advocate for him to stop his chemotherapy and be referred to a palliative
team. Should I ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Simply put, it involves making a decision on someone else's behalf, in the belief that 'it is for their
own good' or in their best interests (Mason and Laurie, 2006). The idea that parental paternalism is
in the best interests of children can be explained by the belief that it is normal that parents should be
responsible for and have rights over their children. It is also widely assumed that parents are their
children's best advocates. This is not only because they have the rights to but it is presumed that
most parents will do their best to safeguard their children's interests. It is therefore not surprising
that parents make decisions on their children's

Paternalism In Health And Social Care
Paternalism is prominent in modern day society and it continues to be very impactful in modern
medicine. Paternalism can be portrayed in various forms and ways. In my social life for example,
my parents have made decisions and chose to make medical decisions when I was younger. This is
an example of soft paternalism because my parents took the opportunity to interfere with my
autonomy when I was not mentally capable of making decisions. An example of paternalism in my
civic life takes part everyday. Working with individuals with disabilities, I have the duty to make the
best informed decision for the clients that I work with. In academics, schools can make hard
paternalistic decisions, such as mandatory vaccinations. A paternalistic action can be classified as
either ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A hard paternalistic action takes place when a person's autonomy is restricted even if a person is
mentally capable and competent. An example of this are our laws, such as the requirement of
wearing a seatbelt. A soft paternalistic action is when someone is not mentally competent, so the
best informed decision is made for them. An example of this is making a choice for someone that is
under the influence. Subsequently, paternalism is ethically controversial in medicine because it can
potentially violate patient autonomy. Patient autonomy is important to respect and violation of this
can have severe consequences. A patient that is mentally competent has the opportunity to make
their own medical decisions. Paternalism is also ethically controversial because of the ethic of
beneficence. This also leads to duty–ethics because physicians have the duty to use their best
judgement is assisting their patients. These decisions can lack experience and can result

Libertarian Paternalism In David Brooks Nudge Debate
Libertarian Paternalism In the "Nudge Debate" written by David Brooks, the topic of human error
and government's role in preventing it was the key issue at hand. The human error that Brooks
focused on was that of decision making errors that many people often make whether it be
consciously or unconsciously. Brooks argues in his article that government should have a role in
helping people avoid cognitive errors for their own good, not by force but rather by subtly
influencing people, or "nudging", them to make certain decisions or take certain actions. Brooks
titled this "libertarian paternalism". In this essay I argue for Brook's position on libertarian
paternalism and how it is beneficial to society. In his article, Brooks mentions how the

Group Soft Paternalism Essay
Wertheimer (2011) argues that the system designed to regulate research in medicine is inherently
rooted in paternalistic notions, specifically what is called group soft–paternalism, and that this
presence of paternalism is just. Group soft–paternalism is the act of paternalism focused on groups,
who may or may not have impaired judgment, as a method to "restrict conduct only when the agent's
decision–making is judged to be substantially non–voluntary or non–autonomous" (Wertheimer,
2011, p. 24). While Wertheimer (2011) admits that there is no perfect model to determine when or if
group soft–paternalism is justifiable in use, he submits that it is structured in a way to provide the
most justice for those vulnerable in society, even if it limits the freedom of non–vulnerable persons
(p. 29). Thus, the foundation of group soft–paternalism is that those persons who are not fully
capable of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One ethical principle is that of respect for persons who are involved in the research. According to
the Belmont Report (1979) this principle should honor a person and their autonomous choices,
however, the report observes that not all individuals are "capable of self–determination" (sec. Part B
1. Respect for Persons). This incapability requires that those persons be protected (Belmont Report,
1979). Wertheimer (2011) corroborates this in stating that group soft–paternalism is implicit that
research should not capitalize on or abuse vulnerable populations, or those population groups who
are not able to make rational self–determination. The presence of group soft–paternalism by
Wertheimer (2011) in exploiting vulnerable groups also supports the Belmont Report (1979) ethical
principle of justice. This principle ensures that persons selected for research are not merely being
selected based on their vulnerability (Belmont Report, 1979, sec. Part B 3.

Libertarian Paternalism, An Ideology By Sunstein And Thaler
Libertarian paternalism, a mix of libertarianism and paternalism, is an ideology by Sunstein and
Thaler. It holds that humans should have free will and should be able to have the freedom to decide
what to do with their own body and life, but with some government interference. This ideology does
not take away any choices but it does basically manipulate people into making choices that are good
for them; therefore a libertarian paternalist would agree with the decriminalization of drugs and
prostitution but would nudge people away from it. Libertarianism is the belief that someone 's
liberty should not be restricted even if it is for their own good. Libertarians would agree with the
legalization of drugs and prostitution even though they may harm people. The opposing view of
libertarianism is paternalism which is the belief that it is justified to restrict someone's liberty for
their own good. Gerald Dworkin (1968), a pro–paternalistic philosopher, believes that coercing
someone to do something is "justified by the reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good,
happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being coerced" (p. 108). This is pure paternalism.
On the other hand, impure paternalism is restricting the freedom of people who do not benefit from
it, such as imposing laws that regulate the sale of cigarettes. Paternalism does not allow for the
legalization of drugs or prostitution. In this paper, I will argue that the state may legitimately
interfere with our

Arguments Against Coercive Paternalism
The focus of this paper will be to argue that when coercive paternalism was assessed, its benefits
were inappropriately weighed in comparison to some of the possible costs it may impose. In
addition, assumptions supporting this policy seem to underestimate individuals' abilities to make
decisions for themselves, which forms the basis of the justification for coercive paternalism.
Coercive paternalism is justified as being necessary for the good of the individual whose choices are
being restricted (Conly. This justification relies on the assumption that individuals do not know what
is best for them, or that they are unable to realize how they are hurting themselves. When this
assumption is examined more closely, it is not strong enough to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Due to human limitations, they could not possibly assess when they are able to solve an issue and
when they need to seek out an expert to provide advice for them. This problem is compounded by
the overwhelming amount of information available in the modern world. As the quantity of
information so easily accessed grows, it becomes more difficult to determine what is of value and
what is factually incorrect. This makes the problem worse by providing a false sense of security to
individuals making important decisions for themselves. The person will be more likely to believe
that they know enough to make a decision since they have spent some time doing research about
that topic. This does not mean that the quality of the information they have collected is adequate for
them to use when making their decisions. Since the person may have done considerable reading on
the topic over time, they will believe they have enough knowledge to make a sound decision, but
this in no way guarantees they will make the optimal decision for

Paternalism Vs Paternalism
In the Bioethics text, one of the statements that I favored states "Paternalism is, therefore, justified:
doctors may sometimes override patients' prima facie rights to information about risks and
treatments or about their own conditions in order to prevent harm to their health. (p. 107) The
general values and principles are to have standards and never lose sight of them, win or lose, good,
bad or indifferent. We as humans want the positive results and things to work according to plan.
When things don't happen the way we want them to, instincts are to be defensive or slighted in our
decision making. Ethically we are taught never to tell a lie. Personally, I stand by that and have
experienced the good results or bad results from being truthful.

Morality, Paternalism, And Justice : Ethical Priorities
Critique #1: Autonomy, Paternalism, and Justice: Ethical Priorities in Public Health
Olawale Akinbobola
The University of Memphis School of Public Health
PUBH 7180 – Fall 2017
Within public health, the issue of paternalism has become a controversial topic. Broadly, paternalism
is defined as the interference of a state or individual with a subordinate overpowering the will of the
subordinate, claiming the subordinate will be better off (Dworkin, 2017). Autonomy is the right of
an individual to be independent and govern himself. These polarizing terms have raised questions
pertaining to the ethical rights of public health working in conjunction with the government to
develop policies meant to create healthy conditions for the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
A justifiable case of paternalism is when a population's safety is endangered. For example,
impending threats to health, like bioterrorism, present the possibility of significant harm to
populations (Buchanan, 2008). While some support the idea of government intervention, this view
of paternalism upsets others. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggestion that a
pregnant woman should not drink alcohol during pregnancy has been widely criticized as being
unnecessarily paternalistic, but the CDC goes further into explaining that "alcohol consumed during
pregnancy increases the risk of alcohol related birth defects, including growth deficiencies, facial
abnormalities, central nervous system impairment, behavioral disorders, and impaired intellectual
development" (CDC, 2016). Buchanan identifies 3 arguments in justifying paternalistic actions:
informed consent, weak paternalism, and utilitarianism. To support his argument of informed
consent, Buchanan admits there is no significant ethical concern because an individual may reach
out to the professional for help, but it is problematic when an intervention is targeting the entire
population (Buchanan, 2008). This point of view from Buchanan is flawed and completely limits
what public health is all about. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines public health as "what we,
as a society, do collectively to assure the conditions for people to be healthy." With its use of the
phrase "we, as a

Liberty and Paternalism Essay
LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing
views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas
Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that
paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on
a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice
is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the
other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its
individual members. He breaks Mill's argument down into two ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
When a young child is about to run across a busy street in order to chase his ball, the child's parent,
or any other bystander, is rightfully justified in physically stopping the child from running into the
street. This is so justified because at the time of giving chase to the ball, the child is unaware of the
potential consequences of running into a busy street. A large part to this justification is the idea of
future–oriented consent, the concept that once the child grows up and realizes the consequences of
his chasing the ball, he will agree that the interference of an outsider was justified. Another example
for which this concept can be applied is the matter of seat belts. The question of whether or not a
person should be punished for not wearing a seat belt, I believe, can be answered by comparing it to
the previous example. If a person were to be involved in a car accident and be seriously injured
because he was not wearing a seat belt, he would come to the realization that he should have been
wearing it. At this point, he will realize that his personal health is worth the inconvenience of putting
on his seat belt. The fact that any logical, rational person will come to this realization justifies the
interference of an outside party, the government in this example. If this person does not realize that
his health and his life is worth putting on a seat belt, it is safe to say that this person is illogical and

Frederick Douglass Paternalism
The Narrative Life of Frederick Douglas is an autobiographical recollection of Frederick Douglas'
journey to freedom. Douglas was born into slavery to a slave mother and unknown white father,
suspected to be an overseer on the plantation his mother worked for. He was separated from his
mother, and did not develop a close relationship with his siblings. Throughout his time as a slave he
worked under several different masters, each of which taught him something about the institution of
slavery– be it the necessity for abolition, the means of suppressing slaves, or the inherent flaws in
slavery. Through his experiences Douglas concludes that abolition is necessary because it is an
unnatural institution, leads to the decline of morality, and is ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In December, slaves were given a few weeks off of work and could spend their time as they please.
The masters encouraged the slaves to engage in merriment and indulge themselves with alcohol.
Douglas states that the purpose of this break it to appease the slaves so they have some reprieve and
cannot claim that they are constantly worked. However, it could be argued that the masters also
encourage slaves to engage in these types of activities during the break, so that they do not find
work elsewhere which would enable them to acquire money (which eventually might be used to
acquire their freedom). By showing that the slaves are not using their free time to its full potential,
slave owners were able to project the idea that slaves were not intelligent enough to make the best
financial decisions for themselves. Therefore, under this logic, it would be best for slaves to work
for the slave owners, and in return slave owners would provide the necessities to ensure an adequate
quality of life (which slave owners rarely did in

Paternalism : A Country 's Economic System
In the time that we are living in this country, we see a lot of groups that help those in need. We also
see those who make it seem that they are making a difference. Paternalism can be an example of
having a country 's economic system decrease. Paternalism is the practice of people that are in a
position of power, who restricts the freedom and responsibility of people below them. An example
of paternalism is celebrities who think their actions are great. There are many images, songs, and
actions made by celebrities that can be insulting to those who they are referring to. Poverty Inc has
examples of how African Americans are really offended due to a Christmas song that was made. The
song is called, "Do they know it's Christmas?". This song was supposed to bring joy to people, but it
did not, it brought nothing but hatred. Celebrities give money to causes and/or charity for publicity,
meaning it is just to make themselves look like heroes and role models in the eyes of the world.
Instead of bringing joy and happiness to people, it brings hate and this is what happened with the
company named Toms. Through the eyes of the media, Toms is known to be such a supporting and
helpful organization. Buy one pair and you will give a free pair to a child in need. But is it really an
organization that has only done good and no bad thing can be given out of it? According to Topher
Hendricks, ".....With the pair I got (for free) running at $54, TOMS has magically made "buy one for
the

Arguments Against Paternalism
1. Children lack characteristics such as maturity, rationality, self–sufficiency, etc., and this lack of
characteristics makes paternalism necessary. [Assumption]
2. Paternalism towards adults is problematic. [Assumption]
3. A clear distinction between children and adults must be establish to assure that paternalism does
not encroach on the life choices of adults [From Points 1 and 2]
4. The view endorsing paternalism for children but not for adults cannot be determined by a clear
distinction between children and adults. [Argument reached in essay through Point 3]
5. The Utilitarian argument for paternalism also justifies paternalism towards adults. [Argument
reached in essay]
6. The Exemption argument for paternalism is vague and often inaccurate. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
I think that for our way of life paternalism is absolutely necessary. In fact I think it has been melded
into various aspects of life such as in our work and education sectors. Internships are all about
working under the rules of someone more experienced in order to gain experience in their sector.
However, despite my agreement I do not believe that his conclusion is universally applicable. As I
mentioned previously, mental disorders change the factors of this argument. In many cases, the
paternalistic role is abused, or the child is abused. There are also stories of sixteen–year–olds
without legal guardians in their household who do just fine. They are responsible for their own lives,
and in some cases are successful. However, for Schrag's conclusion to stand at all, certain specifics
must be declared. Details such as when adulthood starts, the extent of the role and rights of the
authority figure in relation to the subordinate, and vice versa. In situations where adults are put in
paternalistic situations (e.g. internships), how does one express her willingness to temporarily
relinquish autonomy? What is the extent to which these sacrifices can and should be made, and how
do we regulate them? In many ways, paternalism exists in morally (and lawfully) illegal ways, even
for adults. Every year people are forced in sex trafficking business and spouses are abused and
belittled. In these ways, paternalism is entwined

Dworkin Paternalism
How does Dworkin define paternalism, and when does he think it is justified?
In addressing the principle of paternalism, Dworkin notes that there may be more cases in which it
should be justified than what Mill stated. First Dworkin defines paternalism as "the interference with
a person's liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness,
needs, interests or values of the person being coerced" , although he later notes that in some cases,
paternalism "may also extend to interferences with the liberty of parties whose interests are not in
question" . He gives various examples of paternalistic laws and restrictions, such as the laws
requiring motorcyclists to wear safety helmets, regulating the use ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
He does recognize that most individuals feel they have duties, whether they are religious or not, but
claims that this is a "strength" of the integrity argument because it allows people to understand
better why religious exemptions should be justified. Thus religious people are giving ways to better
fulfill their 'duties' and enjoy the good of integrity than non–religious people, who might feel that
they need exemptions as well to protect and enjoy theirs. Another point against religious exemptions
as they are advocated by Bou–Habib is that we are meant to be equal before the law, so to exempt
certain categories of people to obey the law is undermining the concept of justice and equality. In
addition, most of the time laws are justified, meaning that exemptions are not. For example, in many
countries, including some in which Islam is the predominant religion, such as Chad, it is forbidden
to hide one's face in public areas for security reasons. So religious exemptions allowing the wearing
of burkas would undermine the efforts made to securitize societies, as it enables fugitives to hide
easily amongst many other things.
If there are cases that would justify religious exemptions –and there are some–, then maybe they
should not be prohibited by the law at all. Bou–Habib's argument makes sense, but I maintain that
religious exemptions would have negative consequences as it would leads to

Liberty And Paternalism Essay
LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM
John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that
Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist
circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the
well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument,
explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to
society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that
certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He
breaks ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A large part to this justification is the idea of future–oriented consent, the concept that once the child
grows up and realizes the consequences of his chasing the ball, he will agree that the interference of
an outsider was justified. Another example for which this concept can be applied is the matter of
seat belts. The question of whether or not a person should be punished for not wearing a seat belt, I
believe, can be answered by comparing it to the previous example. If a person were to be involved
in a car accident and be seriously injured because he was not wearing a seat belt, he would come to
the realization that he should have been wearing it. At this point, he will realize that his personal
health is worth the inconvenience of putting on his seat belt. The fact that any logical, rational
person will come to this realization justifies the interference of an outside party, the government in
this example. If this person does not realize that his health and his life is worth putting on a seat belt,
it is safe to say that this person is illogical and irrational. If this is the case, a decision can be forced
upon him for his own well being; the same way that it would be for a child for the same reasons.
One opposition to this reasoning is that an adult differs from a child in that it is presumed that the
adult can understand the consequences of his action

Paternalism And Slavery
The Old South was the largest and most powerful slave society the modern world has known. To
describe the relationship between the master and slaves in the American south, was that the masters
did have all of the power in this relationship at the beginning, but later in time, the enslaved then
exerted some of that power. "Planters not only held the majority of slaves, but they controlled the
most fertile land, enjoyed the highest incomes, and dominated the state and local offices and the
leadership of both political parties" (Foner 411). There were fewer than forty–thousand families that
possessed about twenty or more slaves that qualified them as planters. There were also fewer than
two–thousand families owned about a hundred slaves or more. The ownership of slaves provided the
route to wealth, status, and influence. Slavery was the profit–making system, and slaveowners kept a
close watch on world priced for their products to invested in enterprises such as railroads and canals.
Slaveholders took the responsibility for the physical and moral well–being of their dependent which
was their spouse, children, and slaves. Paternalism, which is Latin for "Father," narrowed the
cultural gap between the master and the slave because it became deeply embedded after the closing
of the African slave trade in 1808. The paternalism disguised and gave a reason for brutal reality of
slavery. "[Paternalism] enabled slaveowners to think of themselves as kind, responsible masters
even as

Native American Paternalism In The 1800s
The most basic function of government is to protect its citizens from all types of oppression,
whether it be militarily, economically, or socially. Paternalism is a method in which an authority, in
this case the United States Government, limits a person or group's rights or autonomy for their own
good. It is compared to the relationship between a parent and a child, were the parent will take a
stance over their naive and incapable child because they know what is best for them. This practice of
paternalism has been used throughout much of the United States' Indian policy, dating back to the
1800s. It continued well into the 20th century with the issue of the Native Americans and their poor
living conditions within the reservations. During the 1950s, the government strongly encouraged
members of the Native American ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Conditions on the reservations were poor with very little capacity for economic growth. Studies
show that the median income for Native American families was 57% of the white family median
income; in 1945, the average net income of 51% of those on reservations was $501 or lower. Their
solution was to encourage and assist those living on reservations to move to urban cities, secure a
job, and adapt to a more urban way of life. Commissioner Dillon S. Myer put the plain in motion in
1950. He created the Branch of Placement and Relocation in the Indian Bureau to handle the
relocation process. Relocation agencies were set up in Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, San Jose, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Dallas. The Bureau of Indian Affairs job
was to direct new arrivals and arrange financial and job training programs for them .The bureau
provided money for housing, support for children, and counseling and guidance in finding a job.
Randy Edmonds, who grew up in Anadarko, Oklahoma, tells his experience of being confronted
with a BIA

Paternalism: Slavery and White Slave Owners
Introduction
Writer Gerald Dworkin refers to paternalism as an interference with a person's liberty of action that
is justified particularly with reasons including the welfare, happiness, needs and interests of the
person being oppressed. The aim of my essay is to investigate the slavery period in the Cape Colony
during the nineteenth century with regard to the prevalence of paternalism between slaves and their
masters. By means of suitable sources that justify this statement as well as proof of opposing
opinions I will be able to discover if paternalism very well did exist during the slavery period in the
nineteenth century and also why people tend to believe this.
Slavery in the Cape Colony
With colonialism came slavery and the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One principal proclaimed by anti–paternalist writer J.S Mill, "is that the sole end for which mankind
are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their
number, is self–protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." In Mill's
proclamation, not one simple principle is being emphasized, but rather a few intricate opinions
regarding an individual's own good. He is asserting that self–protection or the prevention of harm to
others is sometimes sufficient and that someone's own good is never a sufficient authorization for
the exercise of domination. Slavery as Paternalistic
The close contact between white masters and slaves in the Cape created immensely oppressive
conditions as slaves were unable to develop their own slave culture to escape the lack of freedom
and individuality that have been taken from them. Therefore, slavery swiftly developed in to a
system for regulation and monitoring of slaves for social control by white owners. This form of
social control is greatly viewed as the beginning of soft–paternalism in the Cape Colony.
The Dutch East India Company (VOC) never enforced laws to prevent interracial relationships
between white owners and slave women which was an extremely prevalent occurrence during the
slave period in the Cape Colony. White

Belmont Report Vs Paternalism
The major aim of the commission, which made the Belmont report was to ensure that ethical
principles are followed during a research involving human beings as the subjects. The commission
was tasked with considering the instinct between the biomedical and behavioral research and the
normal routine that have been acceptable in medicine. It was also tasked with assessing the various
risks that arise in determining the use of human during research exercise. The commission also was
to establish the various necessary consents during the research settings.
The frameworks of the Belmont report have several contrasts with the Anti–paternalism
frameworks. Paternalism can be defined as behavior of a person, group of individuals or state that
deny or limit ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The principle of beneficence encompasses two major rules; do not affect, and utilization of the
possible gains while minimizing adverse effects. The principle of beneficence is in agreement with
the law of Right to try, because it gives freedom to use experimental drugs that can be of beneficial
to persons with terminal illness. The third principle is the principle of justice. The burdens and
benefits are equally distributed through various formulations, which include to each person an equal
share based on the individual need, effort, according to societal contribution and based on merit.
This principle is permissible in allowing the medical physicians to advice the patients who are in
critical conditions to use experimental drugs that have passed through the first phase of the clinical
medical

Paternalism In Healthcare
The information problem can be seen from two broad perspectives that challenge consumer
sovereignty:
The first is an attitude referred to as 'paternalism'. Almost all governments around the world bear the
wide spread idea that consumers should not be left to suffer the consequences of poor investment
decisions in health. Governments, national and international health bodies through policies proscribe
health–risking behaviors such as banning recreational drugs, placing quarantines during outbreaks,
and enforcing immunization. In this context, it is assumed that the policy makers know best what is
good for the individual e.g. the individual does not know the importance of vaccination and
therefore must be protected from their ignorance of poor ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
The assumption is that the average income will reduce as demand remains constant. A study by
Birch2 looked at the 'content per visit' that consumers received when the number of dentists
increased. The finding showed that despite the increase in number of suppliers, the demand for
services increased. Again, it is very difficult to explicitly attribute this increase as induced demand.
It is possible that with the increase in number of dentists within a given geographical area, it reduces
both the distance and wait times for the consumer thereby shifting the demand curve to the right.
The Commission for Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine3 puts forth the following five in
literature to explain healthcare providers limit information disclosure to consumers: –
belief that patients do not wish to have such

Autonomy Vs Paternalism
Life is a struggle and some people want to end that struggle, either by suicide or with the assistance
of a physician. Sometimes that struggle puts some people in an unconscious state of mind for weeks,
months or even years, so the rational being despite close relations to the individual would command
them to be euthanized. Autonomy and Paternalism are at odds when it comes to the topic of
euthanasia, an individual should have the autonomy to request a physician's assistance for suicide.
As well as physicians should have the paternalism to euthanized those in a vegetative state if they
believe euthanasia is the moral choice because their survival is a devastation on medical resources
then so be it. Those favoring euthanasia tend to argue for ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
The second weakness of euthanasia is that it gives the power to health providers, the state or
guardian to play God, the main point with this argument is that involuntary euthanasia goes against
the individual autonomy. However, going back to Karen Quinlan case where the court
overshadowed the little of autonomy Karen had "Karen Quinlan [is to] be kept alive, against her and
the will of her family" (Munson, 556). Karen's autonomy was not considered by the court, how
about if she would voluntary want to be euthanized instead of being kept in a PVS for ten years,
guess that sustaining her life was more important even though she cannot benefit society or anyone
else. The court acted wrongly and should have paternalism demand the discontinuous of Karen's life
support for her family well–being and for the physicians. Dr. Morse was the one physician who was
given the duty to stop Karen's life support but declines later on because he felt that he did not have
that high level of paternalism to take away someone's life. However, Karen's parents had a much
higher level of paternalism by paying Karen's medical support and by being her guardian regardless
of what the court has said of Karen being legal age. This cannot apply when the individual is in a
state of PVS where their autonomy is almost

Goldman 's Critique Of Medical Paternalism
Goldman's critique of medical paternalism demonstrates the right for patient autonomy and decision
to choose a treatment best suited to their needs and interests. Initially, physicians would not
announce any form of cancer to their patients, as it was believed to result in physiological distress.
Luckily, medical paternalism continues to be rejected in medical situations; the topics of outcomes
research, scientific evidence, and court decisions help correct patient decisions on the best treatment.
Goldman based his beliefs on the fact that all doctors have knowledge of treatments; however in
American society, not all physicians follow the same practice or know of every solution to a
patient's illness. In John Wennberg's reading, Wennberg criticizes the irrationalities in the Agency
for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and comprises it in two key points: the weakness of
poorly tested medical theories and a physician's preference of treatment and position dominating
over the choice of a patient (1, Wennberg, CC 2015 p. 21). Wennberg developed the idea of
outcomes research, which is the results of research in the health care system based on patients and
population. Urologists were interviewed in different locations of Maine based on the different
practices on prostate disease. Some physicians recommended men to receive surgery earlier in order
to improve health and to have a longer lifespan. Result showed that this practice was not only an
untested hypothesis, but it

The Pros And Cons Of Libertarian Paternalism
I. Libertarian paternalism is a choice infrastructure that public or private institutions can nudge
choosers to make better choices whereas people's freedom of choices is preserved (Thaler and
Sunstein, 2003). Due to the increasing recognition of retirement saving crisis where people save
much less than is desirable, booming aging population and increasing uncertainty over the
effectiveness and impacts of traditional incentives such as tax relief, automatic enrolment (AE) is
called as a potential solution in the domain of retirement saving. This essay argues against the
current AE scheme in the UK National Employment Savings Trust and argues that while
theoretically AE can be a sensible answer to the problem of retirement saving it has a problematic
choice infrastructure which might lead to sub–optimal outcomes and is facing uncertain costs. The
reminder of this essay proceeds as follows. Section II presents how "nudge" works in AE. Section
III focuses on the limitations of the AE's default options and presents the reasons why this scheme
might lead to sub–optimal outcomes. Section IV concludes by suggesting possible solutions. II.
First, people suffer from inertia, procrastination and "status quo basis" when they are making
decisions. Overwhelmed by numerous saving options which require strong mathematic ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The main concern of the automatic enrolment is that it assumes that government or choice designer
knows best and makes judgement about people's best interests and that of society (Halpern, 2015).
This issue can be partly addressed by the fact that people have low level of financial education thus
tend to make bad decisions and that people's rights to drop out are guaranteed. However, to avoid
misusage by unscrupulous government, transparency and disclosure requirement should be
improved. To boost employee engagement, simpler pension system and personalized guidance are
the

The Philosophy Of Paternalism And Its Impact On The United...
Introduction The forces of globalization, including more affordable travel are leading to increased
cultural and ethnic diversity of populations in the Western Hemisphere. It estimated that non–
European Americans currently make up a third of the US population and will become the majority
by 2080 (Grant & Letzring, 2003). Naturally, nurses are for this reason encountering greater
diversity in the patients they are responsible for treating. It is important to note that these groups
might not have the same value system with respect to conventional Western medicine. The
philosophy of paternalism has largely been discarded and as such greater emphasis on patient
involvement, autonomy and consent have become central to nursing as a profession (Pozgar, 2013).
It is the responsibility of nurses to ensure that patients are cared for in a manner that is respectful of
their individual beliefs and cultures. One such population that is experiencing growth in the United
States is those belonging to the Islamic faith or "Muslims". Not only does this group have distinct
cultural practices, they may also be expecting discrimination and stigma as a result of these practices
that could prevent them from seeking out medical care (Wehbe–Alamah, 2008). In the following
paper, some of these cultural practices and their relevance to nursing practice are discussed.

Paternalism: A Case Study Of Ethical Dilemma
Furthermore, I will provide the best–recommended course of action to be taken in this circumstance
in order to resolve such issues addressed in this case study. In my opinion, it is best for a physician
to disclose all information regarding their conditions, treatment options, benefits and risks to their
patient in order to maximize and respect his or her autonomy or self–determination. Such a course
of action is warranted because it would be incorrect for a physician to rely upon the premise of
paternalism that "health and prolonged life must take absolute priority in the patient's value
orderings" and the belief that life and health are intrinsic without taking into regard the patient's own
values regarding these topics when deciding whether

Paternalism And Paternalistic Libertarianism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Kimberly Haynes

More from Kimberly Haynes (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Paternalism And Paternalistic Libertarianism