Ackerman points out that "no longer is it permissible for a doctor to withhold information from a patient, even on the grounds that it may be harmful." Thus we have informed consent. Arguably, how can a doctor be sure that the patient is indeed informed, and that said patient is making a decision for about his or her health without having been coerced by family, or societal pressure? These are just some of the questions posed in the article "Why Doctors Should Intervene".

It is my belief that besides providing the best care for their patients possible according to AMA practices and standards, doctors must ensure that their position of "authority" is not abused. From my own experiences with family members, and as noted in class and in the article, there are certainly times when patients defer to their physicians to make decisions for them. If a patient chooses to do that and allow the doctor to direct his or her care without formal involvement is a choice that that patient made. At that point, and I believe the doctor has the patient's permission to intervene, but certainly the doctor should continue to inform the patient of his or her options and the course of care the doctor recommends.

Doctors should intervene when patients ask them to, (unless of course there is an emergency and a decision needs to be made quickly; or if the patient cannot speak for themselves for some reason other means should be found to ensure the patient's rights are not violated) it should not be automatically assumed that the doctor should intervene without the request being made by the patient.