what law states you can refuse non-life-threating treatment decisions .edu

Patients have the right to refuse life extending treatment at the end of their life. This right was guaranteed to Americans through the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1991. It requires nursing homes, home health agencies, and others to provide patients with information on advance directives.

Full Answer

Do you have a right to refuse non-life threatening treatment?

Right To Refuse Lifesaving Treatment Every competent individual has the legal right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Therefore, a health care provider cannot force medical care upon a patient without his/her consent even in life threatening-situations.

When can you legally refuse life-sustaining treatment?

Most patients in the United States have a right to refuse care if the treatment is being recommended for a non-life-threatening illness. You have probably made this choice without even realizing it. Maybe you didn’t fill a prescription, chose not to get a flu shot, or decided to stop using crutchesafter you sprained an ankle.

What are the exceptions to the right to refuse treatment?

 · In the United States, the right to refuse treatment is protected by 42 CFR § 482.13. Conversely, a physician may refuse to offer a treatment out of nonmaleficence because the physician believes the treatment would cause greater harm than good. ... a citizen’s ability to obtain treatment for a common non-life-threatening condition at a ...

Is it illegal to refuse to go to medical treatment?

Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 5.3. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining interventions can be ethically and emotionally challenging to all involved. However, a patient who has decision-making capacity appropriate to the decision at hand has the right to decline any medical intervention or ask that an intervention be stopped, even ...

What does the Constitution say about refusing medical treatment?

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions.

Can you refuse lifesaving treatment?

dismissals of the petition, declaring that absent an actual threat to prison security, a prisoner has a right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment.

What constitutes the right to refuse treatments?

The right to refuse treatment applies to those who cannot make medical decisions for themselves, as well as to those who can; the only difference is how we protect the rights of people who cannot make decisions for themselves (see VEN's free handbook Making Medical Decisions for Someone Else).

Can patients refuse treatment according to the Bill of Rights?

The patient has the right to make decisions about the plan of care before and during the course of treatment and to refuse a recommended treatment or plan of care if it is permitted by law and hospital policy. The patient also has the right to be informed of the medical consequences of this action.

Can you be forced to have medical treatment?

When a healthcare provider sufficiently informs you about the treatment options, you have the right to accept or refuse treatment. It is unethical to physically force or coerce someone into treatment against their will if they are of sound mind and are mentally capable of making an informed decision.

What is the 1990 Patient Self Determination Act?

The Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 (PSDA) brings forth the importance of completing an advance directive. The objective of the PSDA is to inform individuals who receive some form of care in places such as hospitals, nursing homes, etc., about their rights to make decisions regarding their care.

What Amendment is freedom of medical choice?

What does the Constitution say about public health? The Tenth Amendment gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, including the power to make laws relating to public health. But, the Fourteenth Amendment places a limit on that power to protect people's civil liberties.

Is there an amendment about health care?

Congresswoman Betty McCollum (DFL, MN-04) has introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make health care a right for all Americans. The Health Care for All Amendment (H.J. Res.

What does the Constitution say about medical rights?

The Constitution protects a person's freedom of choice in medical care, including the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment and rights preserving the doctor-patient relationship.

What should be done if a patient refuses treatment for a life threatening condition?

Where a competent adult refuses treatment recommended by guidelines, the doctor is bound to respect that refusal. If he does not, the doctor may face disciplinary action by the General Medical Council, plus possible civil and criminal proceedings in battery.

What are the seven 7 patient rights?

The charter outlined what every person could expect when receiving care and described seven fundamental rights including: access; safety; respect; partnership; information; privacy; and giving feedback. Its use was embedded in the National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standards.

What is it called when a patient refuses treatment?

Informed refusal is where a person has refused a recommended medical treatment based upon an understanding of the facts and implications of not following the treatment. Informed refusal is linked to the informed consent process, as a patient has a right to consent, but also may choose to refuse.

Can you refuse medical treatment for yourself even if it means death?

Competent patients have the right to refuse treatment, even when the refusal will result in disability or death.” Consent law would be completely pointless if it did not protect a patient's right to refuse treatment.

Can a depressed person refuse life saving treatment?

When depression is diagnosed, there must be a determination whether depression is affecting or limiting the patient's decision-making capacity. If so, the treating physician may ethically object to the patient's request to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment.

Can a competent patient refuse life sustaining treatment?

Similarly, if the patient refusing the life-sustaining treatment is competent, one of the two necessary conditions for treatment discussed above is not fulfilled and hence the patient's health care providers are not ethically permitted to start the treatment.

What should be done if a patient refuses treatment for a life threatening condition?

Where a competent adult refuses treatment recommended by guidelines, the doctor is bound to respect that refusal. If he does not, the doctor may face disciplinary action by the General Medical Council, plus possible civil and criminal proceedings in battery.

What does the court consider when deciding an individual's right to refuse lifesaving treatment?

The courts, in deciding an individual’s right to refuse lifesaving treatment, even if there is a possibility of a cure, consider the competency of the individual as to whether an individual has knowingly and validly chosen such a right, and whether there is a compelling state interest that justifies overriding the individual’s decision.

What is the right to refuse medical treatment?

In re L.H.R., 253 Ga. 439 (Ga. 1984), the court stated that a competent adult patient has the right to refuse medical treatment in the absence of conflicting state interest and such a right rises to the level of a constitutional right which is not lost because of the incompetence or youth of the patient. However, the doctrine that every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done to his own body was reiterated in Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 269 (U.S. 1990).

What is the mootness doctrine in People v. Brown?

App. 3d 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1997), the court held that the State could not override the patient’s competent refusal of treatment decision to save the life of her fetus. The court found that (1) the case satisfied the public policy of the state mootness doctrine, (2) a blood transfusion was an invasive medical procedure, (3) being a competent adult, the patient had an absolute right to refuse medical treatment, (4) religious objections to treatment were constitutionally protected, (5) the State’s interest in the preservation of life, the prevention of suicide, the protection of third parties, and the ethical integrity of the medical profession did not override the patient’s decision to refuse lifesaving treatment.

Can a patient refuse life-sustaining treatment?

The competent adults irreversibly sustained by artificial life support and enduring physical and mental pain and suffering had the right to terminate treatment. Under such circumstances, the patient’s right to refuse or terminate life-sustaining treatment would override competing state interests in preserving life and the exercise of the right would not amount to suicide.

Can a religious person refuse medical treatment?

In a majority of cases, courts have upheld the right of an adult to refuse potentially life–saving medical treatment on religious grounds, unless the individual is (1) mentally incompetent, (2) the parent and sole provider of young children, or (3) a pregnant woman. Where there are minor children dependent upon the survival of the patient, the medical control of one’s body is relative. Therefore, the need of protection of innocent third parties arises and where there are such minor children dependent on the patient, the court will not recognize the patient’s right to refuse medical treatment even when there is a hope for cure. But, if the court finds that the interest of the child is not affected and the child will be adequately cared for both financially and emotionally, then the court will not order any such lifesaving treatment. The court acts according to the state’s interest in protecting children when the lives and health of unborn children is threatened by their mother’s decisions.

Does the state have the right to refuse treatment?

The state’s interest in the preservation of life does not invariably control the right to refuse treatment in cases of positive prognosis. Therefore, consideration should be given to the nature of the treatment involved, the complexity of the procedures, the extent of the commitment and endurance required of a person who has to undergo the proposed treatment along with the physical and emotional burdens imposed on the patient by compelling him/her to accept such treatment.

Can a court order a patient to undergo dialysis?

In the case of treatment for particular conditions such as cancer, unless there are any existing state interests, the court cannot compel a patient to undergo such cancer treatment because the conventional treatment methods of cancer are risky, can disfigure a person physically, and cause pain. However, for treatment related to a kidney disease, the magnitude of the medical invasion occasioned by the treatment compared to treatment by medicines alone is enough to counterbalance the state’s predominant interest in the preservation of life, because the dialysis treatment involves a relatively complex procedure, which requires a considerable commitment and endurance of a patient.

What is the right to refuse treatment?

The right to refuse treatment goes hand in hand with another patient right—the right to informed consent. You should only consent to medical treatment if you have sufficient information about your diagnosis and all treatment options available in terms you can understand. Before a physician can begin any course of treatment, the physician must make the patient aware of what he plans to do. For any course of treatment that is above routine medical procedures, the physician must disclose as much information as possible so you may make an informed decision about your care.

How to refuse treatment?

The best way for a patient to indicate the right to refuse treatment is to have an advance directive, also known as a living will. Most patients who have had any treatments at a hospital have an advance directive or living will. This document is kept on file and tells the treatment team the wishes of the patient in the event that they are unable to speak for themselves regarding their medical care.

What are the four goals of medical treatment?

There are four goals of medical treatment—preventive, curative, management, and palliative . When you are asked to decide whether to be treated or to choose from among several treatment options, you are choosing what you consider to be the best outcome from among those choices. Unfortunately, sometimes the choices you have won’t yield the outcomes you prefer. Whether you have the right to refuse care depends on the patient’s circumstances and the reasons why you choose to refuse care.

When did the right to refuse end of life care become law?

The right to refuse end-of-life care was guaranteed to Americans in 1991 with the passage of the federal Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA). The PSDA mandated that nursing homes, home-health agencies, and HMOs were required by federal law to provide patients with information regarding advance directives, including do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, living wills, and other discussions and documents. It also guaranteed that Americans could choose to refuse life-sustaining treatment at the end of life.

Why do people choose not to be treated?

When you choose not to be treated, knowing that the refusal will shorten your life, it is usually because you are choosing what you believe will be a better quality of life , rather than a longer life that may be less pleasant . Some people, knowing they are going to die soon, even choose to end their own lives rather than be faced with decisions that will, in reality, be executed by others.

Is it illegal to refuse a treatment?

Perhaps you know it will be painful or you are afraid of the side effects. There is nothing illegal about choosing to forgo treatment for any of those reasons. They are personal choices, even if they aren’t always wise choices.

Can you refuse medical treatment?

However, there are some patients who do not have the legal ability to say no to treatment. Most of these patients cannot refuse medical treatment, even if it is a non-life-threatening illness or injury.

What is the law on consent and refusal?

Most states have statutes that codify your right to consent and refuse. For example, in California, Health & Safety Code section 1262.6 (a) (3) states, "Each hospital shall provide each patient ... written information regarding the right's to ... participate actively in decisions regarding medical care. To the extent permitted by law, participation shall include the right to refuse treatment."

What to do if you are incapacitated?

In case you are ever incapacitated and unable to make a choice, you can ensure that your wishes will be followed by making a living will and a durable power of attorney.

How old was Daniel Hauser when he was taken off chemotherapy?

In the case of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy, the court overruled his parents' decision to take him off of chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma. In another case, the Connecticut Supreme Court ordered a 17-year-old girl to undergo chemotherapy treatment against her choice.

Is it rare to have a state interfere in medical decisions?

While the state's interference in personal medical choices is rare, it happens most often in the case of children.

Can a doctor provide life saving treatment without consent?

During medical emergencies when you are not conscious to consent, doctors are allowed to provide life saving treatment without your consent.

Do you have to give consent to a medical procedure?

You have a right to informed consent. Essentially, doctors must tell you all the potential benefits, risks, and alternative methods of any medical procedure and get your consent before proceeding.

What are the rights of a patient?

Commonly established rights tend to derive from a core set of ethical principles, including autonomy of the patient, beneficence, nonmaleficence, (distributive) justice, patient-provider fiduciary (trusting) relationship, and the inviolability of human life. The establishment of whether one principle is of greater inherent value than another is a philosophical endeavor that varies from authority to authority. In many situations, beliefs may directly conflict with one another. When a legal standard does not exist, it remains the obligation of the health care provider to prioritize these principles to achieve an acceptable outcome for the patient.

What is the conflict between a physician and a patient?

Of the other principles, a physician's intent for beneficence conflicts most often with patient autonomy. This conflict has led to the development of documentation in which the patient must demonstrate their understanding of the predictable consequences of his decision to act against medical advice. When disagreements arise between a healthcare provider and a patient, the health care provider must explain the reasons for their recommendations, allowing the patient to make a more informed decision.

Why should we have patient rights?

Establishing clearly defined patient rights helps standardize care across healthcare fields and enables patients to have uniform expectations during their treatment. According to the American Cancer Society, organizations should develop patient bills of rights “to empower people to take an active role in improving their health, to strengthen the relationships people have with their health care providers, [and] to establish patients’ rights in dealing with insurance companies and other specific situations related to health coverage.” As with other bills of rights, modern bills of patient rights establish that persons can expect certain treatment regardless of their socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, gender, or ethnicity.

What is informed consent?

The right to informed consent is composed of two parts: first, the right to be informed of potential harm to one’s property (one’s body) caused by a hired agent, and second, the right to autonomy. It was not until the 19th century that physicians began to advocate that a patient should be given an adequate amount of information to understand his or her state of health.[5]  After landmark decisions by judges in the 20th century, especially in the 1970s with Canterbury v. Spence, Cobb v. Grant, and Wilkinson v. Vesey, in 1981 the American Medical Association recognized for the first time informed consent as "a basic social policy" necessary to preserve patient autonomy even at the expense of a healthcare provider’s desire for beneficence.

Do countries have a patient bill of rights?

However, none of these countries has a specific law outlining a general patient bill of rights, in contrast to multiple European countries. The North American countries' "bills of rights" protecting human rights do not relate to healthcare per se. The closest that a North American government has come to pass an actual patient bill of rights was in 2001. That year saw the failed American Bipartisan Patient Protection Act, the failed Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology bill, and the failed Canadian C-261 bill. Many individual states and provinces have created their own specific patient rights policies. In the states that have no plans, the decision regarding whether or not to use such a system is up to the individual hospital. Thus, there continues to be considerable variation in standards from region to region and from hospital to hospital.

Who advocated autonomy?

Autonomy as a fundamental aspect of human existence was advanced largely by two moral and social philosophers, John Stuart Mill (early 19th century; of the school of utilitarian liberalism) and Immanuel Kant, respectively. Kant proposed that each person of sound mind should first live in moral autonomy, imposing moral decisions regarding himself or herself on himself or herself and secondly allow all other persons to do the same. Mill advocated autonomy with regard to a person’s capacity to govern oneself, and subsequent philosophers and jurists expanded autonomy to include other forms of self-expression. Western post-Enlightenment philosophy and law are no longer concerned with whether autonomy in its various forms is a human right but instead to whom it extends and to what degree.

Is patient rights a human right?

Patient rights are a subset of human rights. Whereas the concept of human rights refers to minimum standards for the ways persons can expect to be treated by others, the concept of ethics refers to customary standards for the ways persons should treat others. As such, rights and ethics are usually flip sides of the same coin, and behind every ‘patient right’ is one or more ethical principle from which that right is derived. This activity discusses how the interprofessional team can ensure that ethical principles are followed and the patient's rights are assured.

When should a surrogate make decisions?

Explain that the surrogate should make decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining interventions when the patient lacks decision-making capacity and there is a surrogate available and willing to make decisions on the patient’s behalf, in keeping with ethics guidance for substituted judgment or best interests as appropriate .

When should a physician elicit patient goals of care?

Physicians should elicit patient goals of care and preferences regarding life-sustaining interventions early in the course of care, including the patient’s surrogate in that discussion whenever possible.

Can a surrogate withdraw life-sustaining treatment?

The patient or surrogate and the health care team cannot reach agreement about a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment.

Is there an ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing treatment?

While there may be an emotional difference between not initiating an intervention at all and discontinuing it later in the course of care, there is no ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing treatment.

Is it ethical to withhold life sustaining interventions?

Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining interventions can be ethically and emotionally challenging to all involved. However, a patient who has decision-making capacity appropriate to the decision at hand has the right to decline any medical intervention or ask that an intervention be stopped, even when that decision is expected to lead ...

What is the Stark Law?

The Stark Law. The purpose of this law, also called the Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (1989), was to curb physician self-referral, or referring patients to hospitals, labs, home health services, medical equipment and devices, therapy. Lab, and other entities or services.

When do you have a right to emergency care?

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1996 (EMTALA), you have a right to emergency care if you are in any incident that is life-threatening or sever, or where bodily functions or organs are seriously impaired, or any incident where delivery is imminent in a pregnant woman.

What is informed consent?

Informed Consent is intended to ensure that a patient can make a well-informed decision about their care. It is a process where a health care provider educates a patient about the benefits, risks, likely outcomes, and alternatives of a procedure, test, intervention, or course of action.

How does patient advocacy work?

Effective patient advocacy begins by knowing your rights under state and federal laws. Too many times, people give up the fight for their own health and well-being because it’s not always easy. This article helps to clarify the current rights that patients have been granted and are enforced through our federal and state laws.

What are the patient rights?

1. Receive clear and understandable explanations in order to choose a treatment or course of action based on the available options and their benefits, the risks, the likely outcomes, and the alternatives.

What is end of life care?

End-of-Life Care. Patients have the right to refuse life extending treatment at the end of their life. This right was guaranteed to Americans through the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1991. It requires nursing homes, home health agencies, and others to provide patients with information on advance directives.

Can a parent give consent to a minor?

In most cases parents can give informed consent for their minor children. Although state laws very and some states do make exceptions for minors to provide informed consent. Patients must be competent to give voluntary and informed consent. This means having the ability to make an informed decision.

What is the capacity to refuse treatment?

Determining capacity to consent to or refuse treatment is a clinical judgment based on the patient’s cognitive and physical functioning and the complexity, risks, and possible repercussions of the medical treatment at hand [1]. It is an essential skill for emergency physicians, who frequently must delicately and accurately walk the tightrope between medical urgency and ethical imperative. Assessing decision-making capacity is central to providing medical care that respects patient autonomy, since patients’ consent to or refusal of medical treatment is not valid unless they are capable of making medical decisions [1].

What is informed refusal?

Informed consent and informed refusal allow competent patients to choose among treatments in accordance with their values, goals, and priorities for their future. When patients refuse recommended life-sustaining medical treatment, the duty rests with the physician to discern whether the patient has the decision-making capacity to reject treatment. Refusal of care in the ED setting creates tension between beneficence and patient autonomy, with the critical determination of decision-making capacity in the balance.

Why is it important to honor the severely burned firefighter's request to withhold treatment?

Honoring the severely burned firefighter’s request to withhold treatment allows him to die from his underlying disease and injury. From a clinical perspective, one could argue that providing medical treatment in this case simply prolongs death rather than preserves life. Mr. Worther is seeking pain medication only, not prescription of a lethal medication. By honoring his request to withhold life-sustaining treatment, we are honoring the autonomy of a patient with decisional capacity who understands the risks of treatment refusal. Providing some patients a dignified death may be just as critical as saving the lives of others [11].

What is the emergency exception?

The emergency exception is based on the presumption that a reasonable person would consent to treatment to preserve life and health if he or she were able. Conversely, the patient who is alert, communicative, and comprehends the situation has the ability to direct his or her health care. The grey areas lie in between.

What is the dilemma of emergency medicine?

One of the greatest dilemmas for emergency physicians occurs when a patient refuses medical treatment that is necessary to sustain life and health. When patients in need explicitly refuse life-sustaining emergency treatment, the physician must choose between the undesirable options of forgoing beneficial treatment and forcing treatment on a competent but unwilling patient [1], both of which have potential ethical and legal consequences. The “emergency privilege” does not permit physicians to treat competent patients with emergency conditions who refuse treatment; but how does one assess an injured patient’s decision-making capacity?

What does the court consider when deciding a child's refusal?

Courts also consider whether the parent (s) agree with their child’s refusal. While parents’ rights can be trumped by the state, courts provide a great deal of latitude for parental decision making, as in E.G.’s case when the mother’s agreement may have ultimately determined the court’s decision [9]. In contrast, when the court did not believe the child had a true ability to express his or her wishes (as in Daniel’s case) or did not have an opportunity to hear the child’s perspective (Shannon’s case), it favored protecting the child over granting decision making power to the parents [10, 11].

Why did Daniel refuse chemotherapy?

The refusal was based on their religious practice of Nemenhah, a Native American healing practice in which Daniel was a medicine man and which forbade chemotherapy because of a prohibition against doing harm [10]. Daniel was unable to articulate why he opposed the chemotherapy beyond the notion of “do no harm,” and experts placed his reading below ...

What is the right to make decisions?

Adults with decision-making capacity have a long-recognized and legally protected right to make decisions about their bodies and health, stemming from interest in their autonomy and bodily integrity. This is emphasized by famous cases like Cruzan v. Director Missouri Department of Health, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a competent person’s “constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment” and set the evidentiary standard for proving an unconscious adult would want life-sustaining support removed [1], and Bouvia v. Superior Court, in which a California court allowed a 28-year-old woman with cerebral palsy to order withdrawal of the nasogastric tube that fed her [2]. The right to refuse life-saving therapies on religious grounds is also strongly defined, most notably the refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses [3].

What was the condition of E.G.?

E.G. E.G. was a 17-year-old Jehovah’s Witness with leukemia who refused medically necessary blood transfusions on the basis of religious belief, a decision her mother supported [9]. Without transfusions, professionals expected E.G. to live no more than a month, and either way her long-term prognosis was poor—persons with her condition had a predicted survival rate of 20 to 25 percent [9]. Experts evaluated E.G. and agreed about the following: she was mature (one specialist placed her at the maturity level of someone between 18 and 21), her refusals were based on a sincere religious belief and not a desire to die, and she fully understood that the consequences of her decision would be death [9]. A trial court appointed a temporary guardian for E.G. to consent to transfusions on her behalf and found her mother guilty of medical neglect, but Illinois’ highest court overturned the decision in 1989, holding that E.G. had a right to refuse the blood transfusions and her mother was innocent [9]. (At this point, the case was technically moot for E.G.’s purposes, because she had turned 18.) The court was swayed by the fact that E.G.’s mother agreed with the refusal and suggested that the outcome could have been different if E.G.’s mother had wanted her to seek treatment.

What do courts consider in evaluating a minor?

Lastly, courts consider and evaluate the minor’s competency and level of understanding. Both E.G.’s and Daniel’s cases involved testimony by experts about the minor’s maturity, level of sophistication in articulating their religious views, and understanding of the consequences of refusing treatment [9, 10].

Why was Shannon's case unique?

Shannon’s case was unique because the right for a minor to refuse medical care was invoked as a defense against criminal charges after her death, rather than in seeking permission to forgo care during her life [11].

Can a minor give consent to a medical procedure?

Most states provide certain universal exceptions, instances in which minors can give medical consent. One is for emergency care when a parent is not available in time to provide consent [7]. Another exception is for emancipated minors, who are deemed legally independent from their parents in all legal capacities, including medical decisions [7]. Some states have statutes that specify types of care for which parental consent is not required, such as treatment for sexually transmitted infections, treatment for substance abuse or mental health, or requests for contraceptives [8]. Lastly, states may have “mature minor” doctrines, under which minors can petition the court to recognize that they fully understand the treatments and consequences of their decisions and should therefore be allowed to make treatment decisions independently, either in contradiction to their parents’ wishes or without consulting their parents [7]. Courts often view teenagers’ refusal of life-saving therapies as an extension of the mature minor rules.

Who must refuse medical treatment?

For one, the person refusing to provide medical treatment to the patient must be someone who is employed by the hospital. In addition, that person must also possess the authority to decide which patients can or cannot receive treatment. In most cases, this generally will include any hospital staff that is in charge of the treatment and care ...

What is an example of a hospital being held liable for refusing treatment?

For instance, if a patient arrives in critical condition and failing to treat them will result in severe injuries or possibly death, then the hospital will be held responsible for turning away a patient who needs immediate medical attention.

What happens if a doctor refuses to admit a patient?

On the other hand, if a doctor refuses to admit or treat a patient without ever considering the patient’s current medical condition, then some courts will find that the hospital should be held liable for refusing to admit or treat the patient.

Why would a hospital refuse to admit a patient?

In contrast, if a patient’s conditions do not fall under the protections offered by EMTALA, then the hospital may refuse to admit or treat the patient simply because they are uninsured. A hospital is a business after all, which means they will sometimes have to make tough decisions in order to protect themselves from liability.

What happens if a patient arrives in critical condition and fails to treat them?

For instance, if a patient arrives in critical condition and failing to treat them will result in severe injuries or possibly death, then the hospital will be held responsible for turning away a patient who needs immediate medical attention.

What does it mean when a hospital is short on resources?

If the hospital is short on resources (e.g., not enough beds, staff, medicine, overcrowded, etc.); When the hospital believes that the patient would receive better treatment at a different facility; and/or. If the hospital lacks the appropriate equipment or type of medical personnel required to properly treat a patient’s injury or illness.

What to do if you are denied admission to a hospital?

If you have suffered further injuries or illness due to being denied admittance or treatment by a hospital, then you should consider contacting a local personal injury lawyer for advice. Your attorney will be able to determine whether you have a viable claim, and if so, they can walk you through the process of recovering any damages you might be owed for the harm done to you.

Right to Choose, Right to Refuse?

• You have a right to informed consent. Essentially, doctors must tell you all the potential benefits, risks, and alternative methods of any medical procedure and get your consent before proceeding. Entwined with the right to informed consent is the right to refuse. For most non-life threatening treatments you have a right to refuse medical treatment...

See more on findlaw.com

Government Intervention

Children

Living Wills and Durable Powers of Attorney