The video reveals that the patient autonomy left off with the external controls. For example, with the prescribing of antibiotics, the physician say, "I would love to prescribe antibiotics for you, but the system will not allow it." This, however, left both sides feeling unsatisfied and manipulated. An alternative resolution that entailed the physician's engaging the patient in an active conversation of the risks and benefits of practice of the medicine, tried to inform the patient rather than simply controlling her. The patient who was engaged in active negotiations and informed decision making have a chance to understand that their welfare may be mildly threatened rather than improved by inappropriately taking the practice of medicine. According to the video, since personal health and autonomy are basic, shared values, this frank conversation with patients is more likely to result in the patients' internalizing the physician's message and stopping their pursuit of inappropriate prescriptions. By controlling the patient, and refusing to prescribe the antibiotic without an extensive, mutually informing discussion, the physician has undermined patient autonomy but may have supported patient welfare and social justice. Thus, it is only by using their knowledge, expertise, and communication skills in a mutually informative process that physicians can support all 3 principles of professional care—including promotion of patient autonomy.
In think the second physician argument is more correct and logical. I think having someone specialize in physicians really made a big difference. I think patients definitely need physician help in interpreting the direct-to-consumer advertising of costly medications, fad diets, and "health" supplements.
If physicians have difficulty fully informing patients about treatment options in cases where the evidence of benefits and harms is clear, doing so is likely to be more difficult in complicated circumstances, such as cases where the ...