This approach becomes extremely problematic once you leave the medical field, and it’s already problematic within.
The easy example is religion. Is it ok to manipulate them to save their souls? But let’s dial it back a notch. What about if someone doesn’t want kids, but you know they would be happier with them? What about giving up sex, drugs, and rock n roll? What about starting sex, drugs, and rock n roll?
Yes, people are stupid. And medicine is complicated and difficult to understand. And in systems like American healthcare, there’s a ton of bullshit on top of everything. But it’s very rare to be ok to deny them their agency to make a decision.
Of course, IME in the US, it won’t be the patient refusing treatment; it’ll be their insurance company that does so. And if not them, then finances in another form.
Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
No, because souls don’t exist.
If I actually knew that for a fact then yeah, literally yes that would be ethical. The reason that feels wrong is because there’s literally 0 possible situation in real life where you can be certain about that, and in the vast, vast majority of situations the person saying that is correct about themselves.
Sure. If you had sufficient certainty that you can correctly, by reason alone, identify it as a truth that this would maximize their well being. Like the children example though, I don’t think there’s any real world scenario where you could be.
I’m not saying we should deny people agency as a rule. Doctors are also failable humans who would make bad decisions if we established as a rule that it’s ok for them to override patient agency.
I’m just saying that even though it’s immoral to establish a culture in the medical system of doing so, individual instances of doing so can absolutely be moral. Probably they should still be condemned anyway to prevent the establishment of such a culture, though.
If there’s one thing we can confidently conclude is immoral here I agree that it’s insurance companies lmao.