Pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill ivermectin prescriptions

Abstract One of the central tenets of contemporary bioethics is that mentally competent persons have a right to refuse medical treatment, even if the refusal might lead to the individual’s death. Despite this principle, laws in some jurisdictions authorize the nonconsensual treatment of persons with tuberculosis (TB) or other serious infectious diseases, on the grounds that doing so is necessary to protect the safety of others. This chapter argues that, in the vast majority of situations, overriding a refusal of treatment for infectious disease is not justifiable, as the risk to third parties can be avoided by the less restrictive alternative of isolating the patient. At the same time, it rejects the extreme position that the nonconsensual treatment of infectious disease is never appropriate. Instead, it concludes that compelling an individual to undergo treatment for infectious diseases may be ethically justifiable in exceptional situations if a refusal of treatment poses a grave risk to third parties, the treatment is not overly burdensome and has been established to be safe and effective, and less restrictive alternatives, including humanely isolating the patient, are not feasible under the circumstances. The burden should be on those seeking to compel unwanted treatment to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

Download Full-text

Hak Notaris Menolak Pembuatan Akta yang Mengandung Unsur Riba dengan Alasan Menjalankan Prinsip Syariat

Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan ◽

10.17977/um019v5i2p187-195 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 187

Author(s):

Aditya Yudha Prawira ◽

Haryanto Susilo

Keyword(s):

Data Collection ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Administrative Action ◽

Legal Implications ◽

Library Studies ◽

The Creation ◽

The Law ◽

The Right ◽

Right To Refuse

This study discussed the right of notaries to refuse the creation of deeds containing usuries by reasons of implementing the principles of sharia and the legal implications of notaries based on Article 16 Law on Notary Position. This study was normative research that used conceptual and legislation approaches. Data collection techniques used library studies. The analysis results showed that notaries had the right to refuse the creation of deeds containing usuries based on the theoretical, juridical, and philosophical aspects. Due to the law of notaries that refused the creation of deeds containing usuries, it violates Article Article 16 Law on Notary Position so that notaries could be subject to tieredly administrative action. The Law on Notary Position had not provided legal protection to notaries who practice their profession under the principles of sharia.

Download Full-text

Judges and the right to refuse treatment

American Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1176/ajp.145.10.1320b ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 145 (10) ◽

pp. 1320b-1320

Keyword(s):

Right To Refuse Treatment ◽

The Right ◽

Right To Refuse

Download Full-text

Part I Introduction, 1 The Nature of Termination

Termination for Breach of Contract ◽

10.1093/law/9780198852292.003.0001 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Stannard John E ◽

Capper David

Keyword(s):

Common Law ◽

The Other ◽

Breach Of Contract ◽

Close Relationship ◽

The Law ◽

The Right ◽

The Relationship ◽

Right To Refuse

This chapter discusses the nature of termination for breach. Termination for breach can be seen both as a process and as a remedy. Traditionally, the topic has been dealt with under the broader umbrella of ‘discharge’, alongside such topics as performance, frustration, and agreement. Problems arise, however, when the notion of discharge is pressed too far; in particular, the idea of the contract ‘coming to an end’ can be a misleading one, and has given rise to various errors and misconceptions. For this and other reasons, more emphasis is now given to termination in the context of remedies. Termination can be one of the most useful weapons in the armoury for the victim of a breach of contract, not least because, unlike many other remedies, it does not require recourse to the courts. However, this notion of termination as a remedy should not obscure the close relationship between termination and the other modes of discharge, most notably frustration. The chapter then looks at the problems in this area of the law, including problems of terminology, the different ways in which common law and equity have approached the question, and the relationship between discharge and damages. It also considers the most important aspects of the right to terminate, including the right to refuse performance.

Download Full-text

Patients Who Refuse Treatment

Informed Consent ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195126778.003.0018 ◽

2001 ◽

Author(s):

Jessica W. Berg ◽

Paul S. Appelbaum ◽

Charles W. Lidz ◽

Lisa S. Parker

Keyword(s):

Informed Consent ◽

Essential Element ◽

Informed Choice ◽

Sufficient Information ◽

The Status ◽

Distorted Version ◽

The Law ◽

Right To Refuse Treatment ◽

The Right ◽

Right To Refuse

From its inception, the law of informed consent has been based on two premises: first, that a patient has the right to receive sufficient information to make an informed choice about the treatment recommended; and second, that the patient may choose to accept or to decline the physician’s recommendation. The legitimacy of this second premise should be underscored because it is too often belied by the everyday language of medical practice. Getting a consent is medical jargon that implies that patient agreement is the only acceptable outcome. Indeed, the term informed consent itself suggests that patients are expected to agree to be treated rather than to decline treatment. Unless patients are viewed as having the right to say no, as well as yes, and even yes with conditions, much of the rationale for informed consent evaporates. Nonetheless, the medical profession’s reaction to patients who refuse treatment often has been less than optimal. The right to refuse treatment is frequently ignored in practice because it is inconsistent with the history and ethos of medicine (1,2). Physicians are trained to treat illness and to prolong life; situations in which they cannot do either—not because of limitations of knowledge or technology, but because patients or third parties reject their recommendations for care—evoke profound feelings of frustration and even anger. It would not be too much to suggest that these confrontations challenge an essential element of the medical identity. Physicians’ reactions to these situations are varied. Some will contend with patients over their refusal, while others, having assimilated a distorted version of patients’ right to refuse treatment, may too quickly abandon their patients to the consequences of their choices, thereby depriving them of the guidance for which patients traditionally have turned to their physicians. Regardless of the quality of care offered to patients or the degree of concern of those who treat them, some patients will have reasons of their own to decline treatment. Before considering how clinicians might respond to these situations, this chapter reviews the status of the law regarding treatment refusal, surveying a legal landscape that has seen dramatic changes in the last decade.

Download Full-text