Compare and contrast the utilitarian teleological and the Kantian deontological interpretations of the moral obligation of a biomedical professional to respect patient autonomy. Should the professional respect the patient's choice even if it is arbitrary, irrational, self-destructive, or deviates from the professional's view of what a rational, competent person should do if ill? Or should the professional act paternalistically to either decide for the patient or to encourage him/her to accept what the professional thinks is necessary to restore the person to health or preserve his/her life? Deal not only with the choice of means but also the choice of ends, i.e. should the professional try to force the patient to reevaluate his/her value-orientation if it is standing in the way of cooperating. Use the example of an addiction to a substance to make your view concrete, so that the addict's unwillingness to quit is the main obstacle to doing what the professional thinks is best. Give reasons for holding your view.
Purchase the answer to view it