-Here, you have two questions combined, needing answered in an essay format. Use Times New Roman 12-point font with Top, Bottom, Left and Right side page margins at 1 inch.
– I have included information about Author Mack Lipkin (useful for first question of the essay) and how Paternalism relates to the second question of the essay.
-Do not quote any words. Use your own.
1. Some medical clinics participate in the testing of drugs that are still in the experimental stage. In such situations the Food and Drug Administration stipulates that the physician must explain to the patient the nature of the drug, its possible benefits, and the element of risk in using it. In certain situations, however, physicians may decide not to provide those explanations. The number of their patients may be so large that they feel they cannot spare the time to do so, or their patients may be generally uneducated and therefore likely to be confused by details. Explain whether Lipkin would think either of these reasons justify a physician’s withholding explanation and why or why not. Can you think of any other reason that would justify withholding explanation? Why or why not?
2. “I really don’t understand you,” Dr. Lowell said. “You definitely have cancer of the bladder. We may be able to remove it all surgically, but even if we can’t, chemotherapy or radiation treatments have a good chance of success.”
“I want none of those,” Mark Jenkins said. “I believe that a high-fiber diet and pure, unfiltered water are more likely to help me. I don’t want to be cut or poisoned or burned.”
“You’re crazy,” Dr. Lowell said. “That won’t do anything.”
“I intend to try it. Even if I’m wrong, it’s my life.”
“I won’t let you,” said Dr. Lowell. “Anybody who thinks the way you do about cancer is out of touch with reality. That’s one of the marks of mental illness. And I intend to have you declared mentally incompetent to make decisions about your own welfare. I shall speak to the psychiatrists on our staff and ask the hospital lawyer to arrange for a sanity hearing.”
“That’s fascism!”
“Call it anything you like. But my duty as a physician is to give you the best medical care possible. If that means having you declared mentally incompetent, then so be it.” Dr. Lowell picked up the phone.
Is Dr. Lowell being paternalistic? Explain whether Dworkin and Goldman would think Dr. Lowell is being paternalistic or not and why (and be sure to define paternalism.)
Then tell me your own opinion–Dr. Lowell claims that it is her duty as a physician to provide Mr. Jenkins with the best medical care possible. If this is so, is it her only duty as a physician? Is there some other duty that conflicts with this one? Suppose that Dr. Lowell is successful in getting Mr. Jenkins declared mentally incompetent. Is her action any more or less justified if Mr. Jenkins then fully recovers from his cancer? What if Mr. Jenkins doesn’t recover?
