CHOOSE ANY 2 OF PARTS 1, 2, & 3 TO COMPLETE.
Part 1: We might summarize Goldman’s positive view this way (NOT in premise/conclusion form):
It is at least possible that doctors engaging in soft strong paternalism (SSP) could produce the overall most good for (and avoid harm to) patients. But even if SSP does achieve these good consequences (and so abides by the principles of beneficence, utility, and nonmaleficence), it is still wrong because it violates the principle of autonomy. And autonomy is a more important value than beneficence, utility, and nonmaleficence. Thus, doctors morally should simply give patients ALL the relevant information and then leave patients alone (be Dr. Informative) rather than engaging in SSP.
Answer the following questions about how Goldman supports this reasoning in his article:
1) What reason(s) does Goldman give for thinking that autonomy is a more important value/principle than the others?
2) In claiming that SSP violates patient autonomy, Goldman is rejecting the idea that through SSP doctors can help patients be autonomous (by helping them reach their most important ends of health and prolonged life…premise 3 in the argument _______). Why does Goldman reject this idea?
Part 2: Put Ackerman’s view in premise conclusion/form
First, explain Ackerman’s position and reasoning about why doctors should intervene in your own words. Then, attempt as best you can to put that reasoning into premise-conclusion form.
Here is a model for how to produce an argument, with the conclusion already filled in:
Premise: ?
Premise: ?
(Premise: ?)
Conclusion: Doctors Should Engage in SSP.
Part 3: Consider this reconstruction of Schwartz’s Argument
1) If a patient (or the patient’s family/health power of attorney) requests a treatment that is either not a medical treatment or a futile treatment or beyond the scope of medicine, then the doctor does not violate the patient’s autonomy in refusing to provide the requested treatment.
2) In the Wanglie case, the ventilator and feeding tube were not futile treatments.
3) In the Wanglie case, the ventilator and feeding tube were medical treatments.
4) In the Wanglie case, the ventilator and feeding tube were beyond the scope of medicine.
5) Therefore, the doctors did not violate the patient’s autonomy in refusing to keep Wanglie on the ventilator and feeding tube.
If either x, or y, or z, then w.
Not x.
Not y.
Z.
Therefore W.
Explain each of the premises 1-4 in your own words—what does the premise mean and/or why would one believe the premise is true?
Then, raise an objection to ONE of those premises.
Some useful sources, https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/882831
Goldman on the Argument for SSP (worked on in class W 9/22)
Goldman’s Understanding of the Argument for (Soft Strong) Medical Paternalism (pg. 107)* and His Objection to It
1) Disclosure of information to patients sometimes increases the likelihood of bad health outcomes (depression or physical deterioration) or the choice of medically non-optimal treatment.
2) If (1), then disclosure sometimes is detrimental to patient’s health and/or lead to a faster death.
3) Health and prolonged life have priority among the values/preferences of patients; that is, worsening health and death are “contrary to patients’ own true value orderings.”
4) If (3), then (soft strong) paternalism is sometimes justified (because in acting in (soft strong) paternalistic ways—by withholding information—doctors are actually helping patients achieve their most important ends: health/prolonged life.) SSP looks like it beneficent (does good for patients) and it helps patients self-govern/be autonomous in the sense of achieving their values: health/prolonged life.
5) Therefore, (soft strong) paternalism is sometimes justified.
