Patient Confidentiality and Paternalistic Approach to Truth-Telling in Medicine Research Paper 2022

Surname 1
Name
Lecturer
Course
Date
Patient Confidentiality and Paternalistic Approach to Truth-Telling in Medicine
Introduction
Health care is a fully-fledged discipline that is governed by ethics and legislations. This
means that the healthcare providers should not operate the way they want, but do so in a strict
compliance with well-outlined ethical and legal regulations. All these are put in place to
guarantee the safety, efficiency, and quality of the services especially for the benefit of the
patients. Paternalistic approach to truth-telling is one of the main regulations that must always be
adhered to. The healthcare providers are free to choose to violate the patient’s autonomy or
liberty rights under the pretext of the paternalistic approach. It is important because they serve
the interests of the patients. This paper presents a critical ad in-depth analysis of the essence of
the application of the concepts of paternalistic approach to truth-telling in healthcare service-
delivery.
Paternalistic Approach to Truth-Telling in Medicine
Paternalism is a situation in which the healthcare providers offer services without their
consent. In health care, there is an ethical principle of autonomy. It requires that the patient
should enjoy some rights that allow them to take part in making decisions regarding the services
that they acquire. Ethically, all the healthcare providers should guarantee autonomy rights to the

Surname 2
patients. However, autonomy is not an absolute right because it can be lawfully and ethically-
violated. The paternalistic approach mandates the healthcare providers to go ahead and offer
medication, procedure, diagnosis, assessment or treatment without seeking the approval of the
patient.
Paternalism is justifiable in health care because it can help in protecting the patient from
any harm. As a matter of fact, the healthcare providers should be responsible for the provision of
safe and harm-free services to their patients. This indicates that the healthcare providers should
be responsible for the safety of the patients who are under their care (Gigerenzer 366). So, even
if he patients are entitled to autonomy, the practitioner can apply the paternalistic approach of
truth-telling to come up with a new decision that is against their wish. The decision should be
ethically justifiable if done with the purpose of protecting the patent from any harm that might be
endured (Murgic, et al. 65. An example of an incident that can serve as a case scenario in this
section is when the healthcare provider decided to treat a patient who had ingested a poisonous
substance against his will. If a patient ingests poisonous substances, it is obvious that the
intention is to commit suicide. In scenario, the practitioner should go against the patient’s wishes
by offering an immediate medical intervention that can neutralize the effects of the poison s as to
prevent the patient from dying or suffering even if that was his sole intension. Should this
happen, the practitioner should be commended because the action is ethical. It provides a
solution to the problem of self-harm that the patient had been misled to do.
Paternalism is also justifiable in health care since it can bring strong health benefits to a
patient. Under this approach, patients are presumed to be lay-people who do not have a sound
knowledge of the implications of decisions they make regarding their health. As lay-people,
patients are likely to make decisions that can end up interfering with their lives. This is why the

Surname 3
healthcare providers are, at times, justified to go against the wishes of the patients (Rosenbaum
739). There are many instances in which the medics have applied this approach when handling
their patients. One example that serves as a case study in this paper is when a healthcare provider
made a decision to amputate a patient’s even though the patient was against that. After a
thorough examination and assessment of the patient’s conditions, the patient made a decision
amputate both the two legs. The practitioner was doing this for the best benefits of the patient.
He had to do this even if the patient had refused that he did not want to be considered as a
disabled person. Also, the patient was not interested in using the wheel chair or becoming
immobile. However, to the practitioner, the patient had to be amputated and supported to the
prosthesis to move around.
Paternalistic approach can be used by the medical providers in pursuit of providing
protection to other people. The practitioner can violate the patient’s confidentiality in other to
protect other people from harm. There are diseases which can be easily spread from one patient
to the other. So, in order to curtail the spread, the practitioner should inform those at risk. For
example, if a patient who is diagnosed with the HIV virus, the medic can inform the sexual
partner/spouse even if that particular patient does not want to do so. This action is justified
because it can be protective. One of the major duties of a healthcare provider is to offer a harm-
free service. The other is to provide a benevolent and safe care to the patients. To do this, the
healthcare providers can be compelled to breach the patient’s confidentiality rights (Bourgeois,
Daniel and Marvin 13). This can, therefore, be done on two grounds. The healthcare providers
are also allowed to breach the patient confidentiality in case of an outbreak of an infectious
disease. The government authorizes the practitioners to collect epidemiological information on
various infectious diseases and submit the data to the relevant statutory bodies. Such data is