The Right to Preserve Life and the Right to Avoid Harm - Essay Example

The Right to Preserve Life and the Right to Avoid Harm: The Conflict in Williams’s The Use of Force The Use of Force by William Carlos Williams, at first glance, seems to be a simple, straightforward story about a doctor treating a sick child. However, as the story progresses, it becomes clear that there is more to the story than the plain issue of doctor-patient relationship. There is an intriguing conflict embedded in the story—the conflict between the doctor’s responsibility to preserve life and the patient’s right to resist medication or harm. What makes the conflict more complicated is the age gap of the major people involved—the adult doctor and the ill child. Apparently, the child has no power to refuse medication; the right to resist is in the hands of her parents. But what happens if there is an element of harm involved? What if the child knows that she will feel pain or get hurt by the medical procedure based on previous experience? Is it still unjustifiable to allow the child to decide for herself? And, most importantly, is the use of force justified in a situation wherein a child with a possible life-threatening illness is uncooperative? It is a common knowledge that doctors are the people to go to in cases of life-threatening illnesses. These doctors avowed to the duty to preserve life. However, this duty has its limitations. The fatally ill patient has the right to resist medication, especially if s/he knows that it will bring him/her pain or harm. But what if the patient does not have the decisional capacity, like a child? The release for consent goes to the parents or guardians of the child. In the story, the child’s parents obviously permitted medical intervention. However, the mother tried self-medicating her child first, and when her methods did not work, she and her husband decided to call a doctor. This fact alone shows how helpless the situation of the child is, which forcibly places her at the mercy of her parents’ decisions. It is obviously against the child’s will to call the doctor. Even at the very beginning of the incident, the child already showed signs of distress when the doctor arrived: “the child was fairly eating me up with her cold, steady eyes, and no expression to her face whatever. She did not move and seemed inwardly, quiet…. But her face was flushed, she was breathing rapidly, and I realized that she had a high fever” (par. 4). This observation alone may suggest that the child felt frightened seeing the doctor. As the story goes on, the resistances of the child becomes stronger. Despite of the reprimands of her parents, she continues to fight back and refuse medication. The child, as a human being, and not as an individual with adequate decisional capacity, is fighting for her right to avoid pain. Obviously, the child associates the image of a doctor with pain. She proves this when she shouts in frustration, “Don’t, you’re hurting me. Let go of my hands…. Stop it! Stop it! You’re killing me!” (par. 25) By firmly resisting, the child affirms her right to avoid pain, and her power to sway the decision of her parents. By showing them that she does not want to be treated medically, and that she is being hurt in the process, she effectively forces her parents to rethink their decision about the matter. Her mother finally said: “Do you think she can stand it, doctor!” (par. 26) Likewise, her father seems to begin to falter: “The father tried his best, and he was a big man but the fact that she was his daughter, his shame at her behavior and his dread of hurting her made him release her just at the critical times…” (par. 23) But the doctor did not waver and insisted that he has to get a throat culture to save her from a possible fatal disease. While the child is fighting for her right to avoid pain, the doctor is strongly fighting for his professional oath—to preserve life. The doctor is trying his best to keep calm because he knows he has to fulfill his professional duty: “But I have seen at least two children lying dead in bed of neglect in such cases, and feeling that I must get a diagnosis now or never I went at it again” (par. 31). It seems that from the very beginning the doctor is determined to properly diagnose the child and successfully cure her. He did not waver, even once, in his decision, even if it requires the use of force. He did not want to violate his professional duty to preserve life, and so he had to forcibly find out if the child is suffering from the lethal diphtheria. However, he passed the responsibility to the parents to decide whether to continue the procedure or not: “But first I told the parents that it was entirely up to them. I explained the danger but said that I would not insist on a throat examination so long as they would take the responsibility” (par. 20). At this point, the doctor is already balancing the conflict between his professional duty and the right of the patient to avoid harm. Even though he is determined to carry out his obligation, he still wants to respect the decision of his clients. The parents consented to the use of force, because even they are convinced that the health of their child comes first. And so the doctor decided to perform his professional duty by force. At the end, the use of force succeeded in attaining the ultimate objective. The story shows that the relationship between the doctor and the patient is complicated, especially as regards the rights inherent to each party. Each party will exert their best effort to exercise their rights, even through the use of force. Both the doctor and the patient in the story used force to achieve their objective; the only difference is that the doctor’s use of force has consent from ‘qualified’ decision-makers—the parents—while the child’s use of force is subtle and illegitimate. Work Cited Williams, Carlos William. The Use of Force. Classic Short Stories, 1995. Web. 6 Nov 2013. Read More