Editorials

Advance directives

The moral duty to respect autonomy is now an established part of good clinical practice.¹ Patients have the legal right to decide whether or not they will allow themselves to be touched for the purposes of medical treatment. Consequently, they also have the right to refuse proposed treatments, even when doctors believe that such treatments are in their best interests.² The most dramatic example of such refusal is the rejection of life saving treatment.

Doctors often find it hard to accept that patients might prefer death to clinical care, especially when they are incompetent and cannot speak for themselves. If doubts exist about what a competent patient wants or needs, they can be discussed when they arise. Since incompetence precludes such debate, the duty of care must be guided by consideration of the patient's best interest.³ Where a clear consensus exists about the . . . [Full text of this article]

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

Relevant Articles

Advance directives

Paul A J Hardy
BMJ 1995 310: 1604. [Extract] [Full Text]

Law Commission's report makes no provision for dissenting doctors

A P Cole
BMJ 1995 310: 1604-1605. [Extract] [Full Text]

Incompetence develops gradually

John P Wattis
BMJ 1995 310: 1605. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Thompson, T. D., Barbour, R. S, Schwartz, L. (2003). Health professionals' views on advance directives: a qualitative interdisciplinary study. Palliat Med 17: 403-409 [Abstract]  
• Zaman, S., Battcock, T. (1998). Doctors need to know more about advance directives. BMJ 317: 146a-146 [Full text]  
• Wattis, J. P (1995). Incompetence develops gradually. BMJ 310: 1605-1605 [Full text]  
• Hardy, P. A J (1995). Advance directives. BMJ 310: 1604c-1604 [Full text]  
• Cole, A P (1995). Law Commission's report makes no provision for dissenting doctors. BMJ 310: 1604d-1605 [Full text]