Next come the question of whether the physician violated Mr Arato’s autonomy. To summarize the Principle of Autonomy according to Tong and the quote from philosopher John Stuart Mill, it is the right to the individual to self-regulate according to his or her will as he or she see fits. This means that decision should not be forced on a person regardless of benefits or consequences. Relating to healthcare, this means that the patient has the right to forego treatment and be advised of the resulting medical consequences. On the other hand, it is the physician’s duty to guide the patient and provide him or her with the information that will allow the patient to make an informed and educated decision regarding his or he care. Now, the question of how much is …show more content…
In Canterbury V Spence, for example, the courts the established that the patient has the right to know of the disease that is being treated, what the procedure being performed, appropriate and known alternative treatment or non-treatment as well as possible risks, complications and expected benefits from the treatment. In another case, Gates v Jenson, the courts found that the patient has the right to know of personal or economic stakes that may impact patient decision. In Jandre V Physicians Insurance Co of Wisconsin, the courts ruled that the patient has the right to all diagnostic tests to rule out other conditions. In Nixdorf v Hicken, the courts ruled that physicians must report important information to patient. The court system seems to be making it up as they go. However, in the case of Mr. Arato, the court found that statistical information did not pertinent or important to the patient future. According to an article by the Journal of Ethics, Mr. Arato was notified that he was at risk for recurrence and