In the the Use of Force, is it justified or unjustified for the doctor to use violence on the girl Mathilda? Why or Why not (3 reasons for each side)

This story is a classic case of the age-old question, "is
the end justified by the means?" The "ends" in this story is trying to determine if the
little girl has diphtheria, which is deadly at the time of the story and which we find
out at the end, the girl does indeed have. So, one would think that whatever means
necessary to save the girl's life would be justified,
right?

1. Force is justifiable because the doctor
   needs to find out if the girl has a deadly disease.


2. Force
   is justified because the little girl will not let the doctor examine her, so how can he
   find out if she has a deadly disease?


3. Force is justified
   because the little girl does not realize the severity of the disease she might have, and
   the doctor is older, wiser, and a trained professional, so of course he should use
   whatever means necessary to save the child from
   herself.

That said, this story can be
interpreted on a higher level as a metaphor for EVER using force. Is it justified to use
force to protect oneself? So, is it okay, then, to carry a concealed weapon? Is it okay
to protect one's country and therefore declare war when one's country is threatened? Is
it okay to drop an atomic bomb on a country to prevent thousands and thousands of deaths
because that country refuses to surrender?

These are all
hypothetical questions, but I think also part of why this short story was
written.