Refusing Medical Important Treatment - Essay Example

What rights in English law do adults with decisional capa have in relation to medical treatment and do these give too much scope for refusing important treatment? Name Professor Course Date Introduction During the provision of medical treatment by every medical practitioner, the service user has to give out their informed consent to the decision made. In the English law, an Article clearly outlines the need to obtain valid consent from the patient before a physical examination or before carrying out treatment measures. The principle of informed consent portrays the vital rights given to patients in order to make viable decisions on what kind of treatment is carried out on their bodies. The right was formulated to be followed, and all health practitioners are advised to abide by it as a core part of a proper medical practice. Medical services should, therefore, be provided in line with the request of the service user and for their benefit (NHS, 2014). However, the right of informed consent has been under much criticism due to the ability of mentally fit individuals to turn down medical treatment strategies that could save their lives. Refusal to treatment decisions by sane adults may put the care team in an awful position that inhibits their ability to give the best medical treatment available. This particular right discourages medical practitioners since a breach of such ethics may result in heavy penalties, jail time or withdrawal of practice licenses. The rights included in the English law state that medical staff employing bodies are also liable for the unethical practice of their union members. In reference to Stavrinides (2012), the principle of informed consent to medical treatment observes that a service user provides their permission in order to receive medical treatment. Such consent ranges from a simple blood test to the complicated organ donations. The English law states that when a patient has complicated medical needs, a mental survey is necessary in order to ascertain whether the patient’s ability to reason appropriately is affected by his medical situation. When such cases arise, a series of multi-disciplinary meetings are carried out in order to come up with a shared agency disciplinary decision. The decision made on the most applicable treatment strategy is now to be effected without the consent of the adult patient. The principle of recovery, as indicated in the English law, ensures that the adult patient is capable to gain control over their lives after treatment. The service user has this right in order to regain their self-esteem and make a step forward towards living a life where they can experience a feeling of belonging and participation. This right ensures that patients are enabled to attain their full potential despite having a medical condition. As indicated in the law, adults who are mentally fit are, therefore, capable of making the best use of their potential capacities. The act that was introduced in October 2000 contains several principles that are geared towards the full implementation of the Act. To begin with, the best interests of the patients have to be the primary consideration that is balanced against any other interests. The English law also states that adults are entitled to the right to notification. Patients are also entitled to responding to admission and any decisions made in terms of treatment as far as the choice is practicable. As provided by the English law, adults are given the right to dignity, privacy, body integrity and autonomy. Such rights are also included in constitutions and rights that have been endorsed by human right lobbies such as European Court of Human rights. Such principles that make up the rights ensure that the rights of adult patients are respected and not overruled under any circumstances (McLean, 2010). In the English statute, there exists no law that sets the general principles that govern consent. However, case law or common law clearly outlines that a patient should not be attended to without obtaining a valid informed consent. The common law stipulates that the medical treatment provided without a patient’s informed consent is considered as a civil offense or battery. Failure of medical practitioners to obtain an informed consent may result in subsequent harm resulting from the unethical treatment. Such claims, when tabled by the patient, can be used when determining the negligence of the healthcare staff to provide ethical medical services to the patient. The claims are handled in accordance with the professional bodies or the NHS complaints procedure (Medical, 2010). Rights of Adult patients to medical treatment in the English Law. In reference to Marston, Moss &Quiggin (2010), every patient who is above eighteen years old has a right to participation in observational studies for the case of mental patients. As provided by the Mental Capacity Act that was introduced in 2005, a statutory strategy is set out in order to make medical treatment decisions for patients who do not have the ability to make proper them. The Act establishes several statutory principles that govern such decisions. The English law sets out the procedure for determining who can make the decisions when the patient cannot. All the legal requirements required to assess whether an adult patient can make appropriate medical treatment decision are also provided by the English law. In accordance with NHS (2014), in the English law, patients are also given a right to privacy, and their personal information should not be used by medical practitioners against their own will. Adult patients also have a right to their organs and tissues. The Act based on human tissues was introduced on 1st September 2006. The Act provides a legal framework that oversees the correct process for storing and using tissues from a living donor. Following diagnostic and clinical procedures, the Human Tissue Act also provides a framework for the removal and use of organs from dead patients such as residual tissue. The right should be respected anytime regardless of their health or upon their death. Adult patients are also given the right to make informed decisions in their life. As a result, medical practitioners are required to obtain an informed consent before making any medical intervention whether a physical observation or chemical therapy using drugs. As provided in Article 2, patients are entitled to the right to life. The right indicates that the right should be protected under all circumstances. In Article 3 of the English law, it states that adult patients ought to be protected by health providers from torture. As a result, all medical practitioners are obliged to provide medical treatment in accordance with an informed consent. As indicated in Article 8 of the English law, all individuals are entitled to the right of respect family and private life. The medical practitioners who obtain confidential data from the patients during the process of medical treatment are hereby required to observe confidentiality. Right of Advance Refusal of Medical Treatment In reference to Selinger (2009), an advance decision is normally used to define a range of advance statements. Such decisions are defined as any form of a clear oral statement, a signed and printed card, a discussion note filed in a patient’s records file or a written document that is used to convey the wishes of the patient. The wishes indicate what the individual prefers to be done upon future dilemmas involving medical intervention. The advance refusal gives a clear outline in which an instruction against a certain medical treatment procedure is given. The refusal of medical treatment is only made by a competent and an adult who is thoroughly informed by the relevant stakeholders. Health care professionals are therefore supposed to comply with the document whenever a specified situation arises since it is a right of the patient indicated by the law. The patients who are adults with a proper mental capacity are allowed to table an advance refusal of medical treatment. However, the following criteria have to be followed when accepting the document. First, the patient has to be an adult. This ensures that the individual has attained the age of eighteen years or older when making the decision. As included in the English law, the patient making an advance refusal only enjoys the right if he or she is mentally competent. The other criterion required for such a refusal ensures that the patient specifies the actual terms of medical intervention that they are against. The refusal document goes ahead to specify the circumstances under which the advance refusal should be put into practical shape. The law specifies that the advance refusal is only acceptable when the patient formulating the document has not withdrawn it or appointed a lawyer to make the decision. As specified in English law, adult patients are only subjected to this right if they have not done anything that could be considered inappropriate in accordance with the terms specified in the directive. Before the use of an advance refusal of medical treatment, the patient has to show that he or she cannot make an amicable decision due to his dwindling mental capacity. The advance refusal ensures that patients are informed that refusal to treatment could result in worsening of the person’s health or even death (Marston, Moss &Quiggin, 2010). Valid Consent It is clear that informed consent and advance refusal to medical treatment are the primary rights that adult patients are entitled to in the English Law. For the consent to be considered as valid, it has to be given voluntarily by an adult who has the mental capacity to give consent to the medical intervention in question. Practices such as acquiescence that are applied by some medical practitioners are wrong since the patients are not informed of what the medical treatment entails. Adults such as parents or guardians are also allowed to give valid consent to medical interventions that are proposed for their young ones. Valid consent should be provided to the medical practitioner who has direct responsibility for the patient’s current treatment therapy. For instance, a nurse who arranges a blood sample test or a surgeon who plans an operation is required to obtain the patient’s consent. The consent is provided verbally, non-verbally or in writing. Non-verbal consent could be obtained from the patient raising their hand as an indication of their agreement with the medical intervention. Consent obtained through writing ensures that a consent form is duly signed (Medical, 2010). The adult patient is entitled to consent that is obtained early enough. The ample duration provided ensures that the patient has the freedom to go through the information provided on the medical treatment procedure. In addition, the duration also enables the patient to ask questions on procedures he or she finds unclear. In the case of adults who are not able to give valid consent, the English law provides that no one should give consent on their behalf. However, individuals who are closely related to the patient such as family members ought to be informed of every decision that is made (NHS, 2014). In a more logic sense, the medical practitioners and social care professionals such as doctors and nurses are trained in order to decide on which interventions are best suited to a patient. The valid consent obtained is only meant to reflect a form of agreement between the social care providers and the patient. In the lack of close friends as well as family members, medical practitioners are advised to consult an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate. The advocate ensures that the right of adult patients to informed consent is respected. The IMCA represents patients who are vulnerable and lack capacity to make vital decisions on the pending medical intervention (Marston, Moss &Quiggin, 2010). In the next step, the effects of such rights provided in the English law on refusal of medical intervention will be assayed. Adult Patient rights that affect important Medical Treatment. Right of informed consent In reference to General Medical Council (2010), whenever an adult patient turns down a medical treatment strategy that is supported by clinical studies, the principle duty of doctors that is to protect the lives of the patient and promote proper health is compromised. For instance, medical practitioners who are responsible for the well-being of a patient suffering from gangrene may propose that for his recovery, his foot should be amputated. As a result, the patient with a reasonable decision capacity may oppose such a drastic operation. The rights of adult patients, as provided in the English law, indicate that a doctor is supposed to make an appropriate decision in accordance with the beliefs of the patient. However, in such circumstances, such rights make the process of providing medical treatment an extremely complicated activity. The inclusion of these rights in the English law has resulted in doctors finding it hard on whether to provide the suggested medical intervention against the will of the patient or leave the patients to die at the end of the day. As outlined by the Mental Capacity act that was formulated in 2005, doctors are left with no choice but to respect the decision of the patient if they have the necessary mental capacity. BMA (2007) states that, following the administration of a medical intervention to unconscious patients, the medical practitioners involved have to provide a detailed explanation for the choices made. Such adult patient rights only result in a derailed process of medical care provision. Selinger (2009) argues that the rights given to adult patients that enable them to oppose medical interventions affect the provision of health care in several ways. For example, medical practitioners are forced to impose an inhumane treatment of the patient. It does not make sense to put a patient on the hospital beds and feeding tubes when they refuse to appreciate the formulated medical intervention. As a result, the death of the patient could occur if no intervention is carried out. Right to Advance Refusal of medical treatment Such documents give the patients a right to turn down the best medical strategies that have been formulated by the medical professionals. In cases where the medical intervention is carried out against the advance refusal document, the doctors are subjected to court cases a scenario that paralyses the functioning of the wider health sector. Some advance refusals may contain specific criteria that could be way behind the times and technology. In such cases, the whole process of saving a patient’s life is slowed down by court procedures that have to find an amicable solution (McLean, 2010). Conclusion The study shows that there exist several rights in the English law that protect or destroy the adult patients. Such patients are given the capability to give valid consent that can be used during the provision of medical treatment. In certain cases, the right to advance refusal of medical treatment has resulted in patients signing their way to the graves. The study proves that adult patients go on to formulate advance refusals even after information on the possibility of death as a result of their choices. In rights such as informed consent, the medical practitioners have to provide the right information about the medical treatment procedure that has been developed. The other rights entitled to adult patients such as the right to privacy are not active directly in affecting the scope of refusing medical treatment. Bibliography BMA. (2007). Withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment: guidance for decision-making, 3rd edition. London: British Medical Association. Marston G., Moss J., & Quiggin J. (2010). In Risk, Welfare and Work. In C. Mackenzie, Autonomy: individualistic or social and relational? (pp. 107-127). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. McLean S. (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. London: Routledge. Medical C. G. (2010). Good Medical Practice. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from General Medical Council: http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/GMP_0910.pdf NHS. (2014, September 15). consent to treatment. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from NHS choices: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Consent-to-treatment/Pages/How-does-it-work.aspx Selinger C. P. (2009). The right to consent: Is it absolute? British Journal of Medical Practitioners:2(2), 50-54. Stavrinides Z. (2012). Adolescent Patients’ Consent and Refusal to Medical Treatment: an Ethical Quandary in English Law. Humanicus issue 8, 1-16. Read More