Patients Who Refuse Treatment

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.

scholarly journals Relational Autonomy, the Right to Reject Treatment, and Advance Directives in Japan

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anri Asagumo
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Treatment Withdrawal ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Treatment Refusal ◽  
Relational Autonomy ◽  
Societal Values ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

Abstract Although the patient’s right to decide what they want for themselves, which is encompassed in the notion of ‘patient-centred medicine’ and ‘informed consent’, is widely recognised and emphasised in Japan, there remain grave problems when it comes to respecting the wishes of the no-longer-competent when death is imminent. In general, it is believed that the concepts above do not include the right to refuse treatment when treatment withdrawal inevitably results in death, even when the patient previously expressed the wish to exercise this right when competent. In this paper, I first explain the current social and legal situation in Japan, where the lack of legal clarity regarding the right to reject treatment tends to result in doctors adopting the interpretation of patients’ words that is least conducive to treatment withdrawal. I then argue that the right to refuse treatment should be taken seriously, even when the patient is no longer competent, or the treatment refusal will result in death. I suggest that the concept of relational autonomy might have some practical and valuable implications in a country where individual autonomy is considered incompatible with societal values. Finally, I answer possible objections to relational autonomy and address the widespread societal concern about sliding down the slippery slope from allowing the right to refuse treatment to the obligation to die.

More on the right to refuse treatment.

1982 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 974-975
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Gutheil
Keyword(s):  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

CIVIL AND LEGAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav Skoromnyy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pension System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Model Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article presents the conceptual foundations of bringing judges to civil and legal liability. It was found that the civil and legal liability of judges is one of the types of legal liability of judges. It is determined that the legislation of Ukraine provides for a clearly delineated list of the main cases (grounds) for which the state is liable for damages for damage caused to a legal entity and an individual by illegal actions of a judge as a result of the administration of justice. It has been proved that bringing judges to civil and legal liability, in particular on the basis of the right of recourse, provides for the payment of just compensation in accordance with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. It was established that the bringing of judges to civil and legal liability in Ukraine is regulated by such legislative documents as the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Explanatory Note to the European Charter on the Status of Judges (Model Code), the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges», the Law of Ukraine «On the procedure for compensation for harm caused to a citizen by illegal actions of bodies carrying out operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecutors and courts», Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of certain provisions of Article 2, paragraph two of clause II «Final and transitional provisions» of the Law of Ukraine «On measures to legislatively ensure the reform of the pension system», Article 138 of the Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges» (the case on changes in the conditions for the payment of pensions and monthly living known salaries of judges lagging behind in these), the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights».

scholarly journals RIGHTS OWNERSHIP TO CERTIFIED LAND CONFRONTED WITH THE CUSTOMARY LAW IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saim Aksnudin
Keyword(s):  
National Development ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Status ◽  
Need For Support ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ownership Of Land

In the national development the role of land for the fulfillment of various purposes will increase, either as a place to live or for business activities. In relation to that will also increase the need for support in the form of guarantee of legal certainty in the field of land. The result of the research is the conception of the state of Indonesia is a state law, which contains the meaning in the administration of government and the state based on the law, the protection of the law is a universal concept of the rule of law. The legal certainty on land rights as intended by the UUPA encompasses three things, namely the certainty of the object of land rights, certainty on the subject of land rights and certainty about the status of landrights. Legal conception of land title certificate is a proof that issued by authorized legal institution, containing juridical data and physical data which isused as evidence of ownership of land rights in order to provide assurance of legal certainty and certainty of rights to a plot of land owned or possessed by a person or legal entity. With the certificate of rights, it is expected that the juridical can guarantee the legal certainty and the right by the state for the holder of the right to the land. This country's guarantee is granted to the owner or the holder of the certificate may be granted because the land is already registered in the state land administration system.

scholarly journals The Right to Refuse Treatment for Infectious Disease

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-182
Author(s):  
Carl H. Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Extreme Position ◽  
Refusal Of Treatment ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

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.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document