(Dax) Cowart: The Conflict Between Beneficence And Autonomy

542 Words3 Pages

In the case of Donald (Dax) Cowart, one can determine that the conflict is between Beneficence and Autonomy. The doctors were morally right in choosing to treat Donald despite his autonomy by using the principle of beneficence. Firstly, doctors entire training is about how to save lives, so in a sense it is something they are morally obligated to do. Patients go to hospital in the hopes of being treated. But in Donald’s case it was the total opposite. He went to the hospital with his mind already made up to die, which goes against what the doctors have being taught to do, and the principle of beneficence. The doctors decided to reject his autonomy because they knew he had an immense possibility of having a happy live and not just simply acting in a paternalistic way. In the end the doctors decisions was the right choice, when Donald stated, “I am enjoying life now, and I’m glad to be alive” (Munson6). Which proves that the doctors knew what they were doing, even though his autonomy might have being rejected; at the end it turned out to be a greater benefit to Donald because he was able to live again as a normal man. …show more content…

Although they rejected his autonomy the doctors gave him alternatives to decide upon regarding his decision to die. Even though the psychiatrist declared Donald was fully competent, it doesn’t mean he was in the right emotional mindset to make a life decision. In one day he lost everything that we as humans need to function on a daily basis, and he also lost his dad whom he was extremely close to. It is logical to argue that Donald’s decision to die was clouded by those factors to a point that he couldn’t see that the treatment were best for

Show More
Open Document