Right of a patient to refuse medical treatment: justification for judicial intrusion

Abstract

It is rather a paradox that while medical treatment is designed for the good health and well-being of the patient, the patient, especially an adult and competent one, reserves the right to refuse medical treatment even though that refusal may seem unwise, foolish or ridiculous or may lead to the death of the patient. This right is founded on the respect for the autonomy of the individual and the right to protect the integrity of his body. These rights are predicated on the fundamental rights of the individual as founded in the Constitution. Therein lies the paradox. This paper discusses the right of a patient to refuse medical treatment and juxtaposes this right with the necessity of judicial intrusion when the occasion presents itself. This is achieved by an expository review of relevant case law and scholarly literature on the subject. The conclusion that is made is that while the patient reserves the right to refuse medical treatment, judicial intervention is permitted in certain specified instances for the preservation of life, protection of innocent third parties or for the maintenance of the ethics and integrity of the medical profession. On the basis of this conclusion, the paper recommends that while judicial intervention is welcome in appropriate cases, it should not override a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment in exercise of his constitutional right.

Key words: Rights, Medical Treatment, Judicial Intrusion, State’s Interest.