Rights of and duties to non‐consenting patients–informed refusal in the developing world

Developing World Bioethics 6 (1):13-22 (2006)
Abstract
ABSTRACTThe principle of informed refusal poses a specific problem when it is invoked by a pregnant woman who, in spite of having accepted her pregnancy, refuses the diagnostic and/or therapeutic measures that would ensure the well‐being of her endangered fetus. Guidelines issued by professional bodies in the developed world are conflicting: either they allow autonomy and informed consent to be overruled to the benefit of the fetus, or they recommend the full respect of these principles. A number of medical ethicists advocate the overruling of alleged irrational or unreasonable refusal for the benefit of the fetus. The present essay supports the view of fetal rights to health and to life based on the principle that an ‘accepted’ fetus is a ‘third person’. In developing countries, however, the implementation of the latter principle is likely to be in conflict with a ‘communitarian’ perception of the individual – in this case, the pregnant woman. Within the scope of the limitations to the right to autonomy of J.S. Mill's ‘harm principle’, the South African Patients’ Charter makes provision for informed refusal. The fact that, in practice, it is not implemented illustrates the well‐known difficulty of applying Western bioethical principles in real life in the developing world
Keywords rights  informed refusal  duties  informed consent
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 12,720
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Michael J. Meyer (1992). Patients' Duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (5):541-555.
Louis-Jacques van Bogaert (2002). Comments on the Thandi Case. Developing World Bioethics 2 (1):88–91.
David M. Douglas (2011). A Bundle of Software Rights and Duties. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (3):185-197.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-08-30

Total downloads

4 ( #281,042 of 1,413,400 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #154,345 of 1,413,400 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.