BMJ 1994;308:1425 (28 May)

Education and debate

The legal view

M A Jones 

Faculty of Law, University of Liverpool, PO Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX.

The legal principles applicable to patients who refuse consent to medical treatment are relatively simple. The problem comes when seeking to apply the principles to particular facts. A competent adult has an absolute right to decline medical treatment (subject only to the provisions for compulsory treatment of mental disorder or illness under the Mental Health Act 1983). This right exists "notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non- existent."1 Thus, provided that the two patients were competent to consent, and hence to refuse consent, the doctors were correct to respect their decision to refuse blood transfusions, irrespective of the consequences.

In a Canadian case an accident and emergency doctor who gave blood to an unconscious Jehovah's Witness knowing that she carried a signed card indicating that she did not wish to receive blood products, was held liable for battery and ordered to . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Register of willing consultants is needed
Arabinda Saha and Max Elstein
BMJ 1994 309: 125. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Kerridge, I., Lowe, M., Seldon, M., Enno, A., Deveridge, S. (1997). Clinical and Ethical Issues in the Treatment of a Jehovah's Witness With Acute Myeloblastic Leukemia. Arch Intern Med 157: 1753-1757 [Abstract]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ