Patient Autonomy vs. Medical Paternalism: Ethical Boundaries in Treatment and Healthcare

Abstract

Aim: The paper examines the ethical tension between patient autonomy and medical paternalism in contemporary healthcare practices. The study seeks to identify the ethical boundaries that emerge when a patient’s right to make informed medical decisions comes into conflict with the physician’s duty to act in the patient’s best interest.

Methodology and Approach: The researcher has adopted a qualitative and theoretical approach for the study. Primary reliance is placed on established bioethical theories, including deontology, utilitarianism, and principles, to analyze the conceptual foundations of autonomy and paternalism. In addition, selected clinical and legal cases have been examined to understand ethical decision-making from both patient and physician perspectives.

Outcome: Through the paper, the researcher has found that rigid adherence to either patient autonomy or medical paternalism is ethically problematic. While prioritizing autonomy safeguards patient agency and individual rights, it may prove inadequate in situations involving impaired decision-making capacity or serious medical risk. Excessive paternalism, on the other hand, risks undermining patient dignity, trust, and legal accountability.

Conclusion and Suggestions: The study concludes that a balanced and context-sensitive approach is essential for ethical medical practice. It suggests strengthening informed consent procedures, encouraging shared decision-making, and integrating ethical deliberation into clinical training to maintain equilibrium between patient rights and professional responsibility.