The Dax Case - by Vishal Thaker

Dax Cowart does make several strong points which seem sufficient enough to support his opinion that patients should have their constitutional rights and freedoms even in a hospital setting. I agree with Cowart's belief that freedom means that people have the ability to make the right choices or the wrong choices. However, Cowart's argument, though containing validity, can be found inadequate.


A medical student right before getting the letters "M.D." or "D.O." after his/her name must take the Hippocratic Oath, which abides the doctors to basically do whatever is necessary to better the health of a patient and not to do any harm. Therefore, a medical doctor's obligations to the profession and society seem to contradict the possible personal freedoms in a hospital setting. Thus, an intense problem would arise if the courts did ever rule in favor of patients being able to be completely autonomous in a hospital. Would a doctor be breaching the Hippocratic Oath if a "Dax Cowart" refused medical care and his condition worsened? If the doctor treated a "Dax Cowart" anyway, did the physician breach the patient's constitutional rights?


Therefore, Cowart's argument can be found inadequate because he does not take into account a physician's oaths and accompanying responsibilities. If no state paternalism in medical care existed, complete autonomous patients would sometimes do harm to themselves -- going against doctor's oaths. In closing, Cowart could choose to strengthen his arguments by recognizing that changes to state paternalism would also have to include changes to the Hippocratic Oath.