Should an Incapacitated Patient’s Refusal of Treatment Be Respected? Discussion of a Hypothetical Case

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 25 (4):112-118 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In the present super-aging society, issues concerning what treatment should be given for incapacitated patients have become more important than ever before. This paper discusses whether or not an incapacitated patient’s refusal of treatment should be respected. The authors present a complete hypothetical scenario involving a 75-year-old moderately demented man suffering from malignant lymphoma. Of primary importance are the respect for patient dignity and the protection of human rights. Acts such as coercion, disregard, restriction, and surveillance can be unethical in many situations. The effectiveness of chemotherapy for malignant lymphoma and its adverse outcomes could offset each other, leaving no net benefits for the patient. The patient is vulnerable and this very vulnerability requires the utmost protection and care. However, protection must be sensitive and comprehensive and the protection of his life at the expense of many other valuable factors is not justifiable. Coercing unwanted treatment would be intrusion, not protection, because of the physical and psychological suffering. When the refusal is explicit, consistent, and stable enough, it should to be viewed as true and current desire. Due to moderate dementia, the patient has lost his rational capacity, but his emotional capacity remains. If the remaining portion of his personality is rooted in his feelings, these feelings should be respected as much as possible. Those involved in the care of the patients who refuse treatment should not force them to undergo it simply on the grounds that it may be an established standard in their own country. What must be asked first is whether or not forced treatment would promote the patient’s subjective well-being. Additionally, treatment decisions should not be distorted due to the selfishness or discriminatory feelings of those involved in his care. In situations in which patients lack decisionmaking capacities, overriding the patients’ refusals of treatment should be regarded as an exception, rather than a standard course of action. Even in patients who are incapacitated, treatment refusal could stem from the feelings of the individual. Their subjective wellbeing would not be improved through close observation, restraint, denial, and coercion, the purpose of which they does not understand.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,509

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Law, Ethics, and the Patient Preference Predictor.R. Dresser - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):178-186.
Decision Making Capacity Should Not Be Decisive in Emergencies.Dieneke Hubbeling - 2014 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (2):229-238.
Patient Informed Choice for Altruism.M. D. Doukas, David J. & John Hardwig - 2014 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23 (4):397-402.
Best Interests and Treatment for Mental Disorder.Phil Fennell - 2008 - Health Care Analysis 16 (3):255-267.
Relatives' Knowledge of Decision Making in Intensive Care.M. G. Booth - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (5):459-461.
False Belief and the Refusal of Medical Treatment.R. Faden & A. Faden - 1977 - Journal of Medical Ethics 3 (3):133-136.


Added to PP

3 (#1,305,094)

6 months
1 (#417,896)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1983 - University of California Press, C1983.
Whose Justice? Which Rationality?Alasdair C. MacIntyre - 1988 - University of Notre Dame Press.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1985 - Human Studies 8 (4):389-392.
Whose Justice? Which Rationality?Alasdair Macintyre - 1988 - Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (2):363-363.

View all 9 references / Add more references