Paternalism and Patient Autonomy
Abstract
Patient Autonomy refers to the patient’s rational capacity for self-governance and self-
determination, while Paternalism is the interference with one’s autonomy with the purpose of
protection and prevention of possible harm. Here, the burden of proof lies heavily on the
governing body that makes the decision to override one’s autonomy to carry out paternalistic
actions. From a medical perspective, doctors engage in the act of Paternalism where they may limit
a patient's freedom.
This paper aims at researching and analyzing the application of these principles of professional
medical ethics from an Indian Health law perspective. By doing this, the researcher intends to
highlight the scope of these concepts in Indian legislations along with the importance of codifying
the length and breadth of Paternalism and Party Autonomy.
References
Chapter 6: Informed Consent, Autonomy, and Beliefs. NCBI: Autonomy, Rationality, and
Contemporary Bioethics, n.d. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556864/
Murgic L, Hébert PC, Sovic S, Pavlekovic G. Paternalism and autonomy: views of patients and
providers in a transitional (post-communist) country. BMC Med Ethics. 2015
Mullick, Parul, Ajay Kumar, Smita Prakash, and Aseem Bharadwaj. “Consent and the Indian
Medical Practitioner.” Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 59, no. 11 (2015): 695.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.169989.
Kopelman, Loretta M. “On Distinguishing Justifiable from Unjustifiable Paternalism.” Journal of
Ethics | American Medical Association. American Medical Association, February 1, 2004.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/distinguishing-justifiable-unjustifiable-
paternalism/2004-02.
Thompson, Lindsay J. “Moral Considerations of Paternalism.” Encyclopædia Britannica.
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., December 23, 2013.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/paternalism/Moral-considerations-of-paternalism.
Dworkin, Gerald. “Paternalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University,
September 9, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/.
Millum, Joseph, and Christine Grady. “The Ethics of Placebo-Controlled Trials: Methodological
Justifications.” Contemporary clinical trials. U.S. National Library of Medicine, November 2013.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844122/.
Vaughn, Lewis. “Truth-Telling and Confidentiality.” Essay. In Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and
Cases, 176–288. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020
Omprakash V. Nandimath. Consent and Medical Treatment: The Legal Paradigm in India. Indian
Journal of Urology, n.d. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27799.
Hajar, Rachel. “The Physician's Oath: Historical Perspectives.” Heart views : the official journal
of the Gulf Heart Association. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd, 2017.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755201/.
Beauchamp, Tom. “The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Stanford University, February 11, 2019.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/principle-beneficence/.
Vaughn, Lewis. “Moral Principles in Bioethics” Essay. In Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and
Cases. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Raute, L J., P C. Gupta and M S. Pednekar. "Smoking ban and indoor air quality in restaurants in
Mumbai, India." Indian journal of occupational and environmental medicine 15 (2011): 72.
Vaughn, Lewis. “Futile Treatment” Essay. In Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Article 21, Constitution of India
TT Thomas (Dr.) vs Elisa. AIR 1987 Ker. 52
Pt. Parmanand Katara v Union of India. AIR 1989 SC 2039
Emma Cave. The Ill-Informed: Consent to Medical Treatment and the Therapeutic Exception.
Sage Journals: Common Law World Review, n.d.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1473779517709452.
Ram Bihari Lal v Dr. J. N. Srivastava. AIR 1985 MP 150
C A Muthu Krishnan v M. Rajyalakshmi. AIR 1999 AP 311
Samira Kohli vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr on 16 January, 2008
Chandra Shukla v Union of India. AIR 1987 ACJ 628
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and
Others [1985] 1 AC 871, HL
Published
Versions
- 2023-05-12 (2)
- 2022-01-21 (1)