You definitely have cancer of the bladder

"I really don't understand you," Dr. Lowell said. "You definitely have cancer of the bladder. We may be able to remove it all surgically, but even if we can't, chemotherapy or radiation treatments have a good chance of success." "I want none of those," Mark Jenkins said. "I believe that a high-fiber diet and pure, unfiltered water are more likely to help me. I don't want to be cut or poisoned or burned." "You're crazy," Dr. Lowell said. "That won't do anything." "I intend to try it. Even if I'm wrong, it's my life." "I won't let you," said Dr. Lowell. "Anybody who thinks the way you do about cancer is out of touch with reality. That's one of the marks of mental illness. And I intend to have you declared mentally incompetent to make decisions about your own welfare. I shall speak to the psychiatrists on our staff and ask the hospital lawyer to arrange for a sanity hearing." "That's fascism!" "Call it anything you like. But my duty as a physician is to give you the best medical care possible. If that means having you declared mentally incompetent, then so be it." Dr. Lowell picked up the phone. Is Dr. Lowell being paternalistic? Explain whether Dworkin and Goldman would think Dr. Lowell is being paternalistic or not and why (and be sure to define paternalism.) Then tell me your own opinion--Dr. Lowell claims that it is her duty as a physician to provide Mr. Jenkins with the best medical care possible. If this is so, is it her only duty as a physician? Is there some other duty that conflicts with this one? Suppose that Dr. Lowell is successful in getting Mr. Jenkins declared mentally incompetent. Is her action any more or less justified if Mr. Jenkins then fully recovers from his cancer? What if Mr. Jenkins doesn't recover?