• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

should patients be allowed to refuse medically necessary treatment

flowerpower

New member
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
this is a tough one... yes they should be able to refuse it because look what happened in china when people where getting treatments that they didn't ask for.. and some even died. but then- what about if you're lying on your death bad and there's a perfect cure for you.. but you simply deny it?
 
this is a tough one... yes they should be able to refuse it because look what happened in china when people where getting treatments that they didn't ask for.. and some even died. but then- what about if you're lying on your death bad and there's a perfect cure for you.. but you simply deny it?
Depends on the degree of necessary medical treatment. If someone needs immediate life-saving medical intervention, honoring any denial request is probably tantamont to assisted suicide and/or criminal negligence.
 
Depends on the circumstances. Many people who are in need of serious treatment are not fully functional and capable of making responsible choices. However, given the increasing ability of medicine to keep people alive far beyond normal limits, older people may be faced with difficult choices. Perhaps someone has a treatment that will grant them and extra year of life, but will cost 200k dollars for that year. It would be perfectly reasonable for that person to decide that they would rather bite the bucket a bit early, rather than cause financial hardship to their family. In addition, some people may not wish to live the extra 5 years if they have to be sponged bathed and spoon fed for that time.
 
You are asking the wrong question.

If you are ill-- possibly even dying-- but you are still mentally capable of refusing treatment and physically capable of making your wishes known... should anyone, be it your family, your doctor, or the government, be allowed to hold you against your will and force you to submit to medical treatment?

I cannot support this. It is kidnapping and assault at the very least.

Now, if this is unacceptable to you... what is the difference between overriding someone's wishes when they are conscious, and waiting until they are helpless to do so? Their helplessness does not make it morally more tolerable.

The only exception I will grant to this is children, whose parents are morally and legally responsible for them, but even then at some point I believe that their wishes must be honored.
 
You are asking the wrong question.

If you are ill-- possibly even dying-- but you are still mentally capable of refusing treatment and physically capable of making your wishes known... should anyone, be it your family, your doctor, or the government, be allowed to hold you against your will and force you to submit to medical treatment?

I cannot support this. It is kidnapping and assault at the very least.

Now, if this is unacceptable to you... what is the difference between overriding someone's wishes when they are conscious, and waiting until they are helpless to do so? Their helplessness does not make it morally more tolerable.

The only exception I will grant to this is children, whose parents are morally and legally responsible for them, but even then at some point I believe that their wishes must be honored.

I agree.........
 
If you are ill-- possibly even dying-- but you are still mentally capable of refusing treatment and physically capable of making your wishes known... should anyone, be it your family, your doctor, or the government, be allowed to hold you against your will and force you to submit to medical treatment?

I cannot support this. It is kidnapping and assault at the very least.

Now, if this is unacceptable to you... what is the difference between overriding someone's wishes when they are conscious, and waiting until they are helpless to do so? Their helplessness does not make it morally more tolerable.

The only exception I will grant to this is children, whose parents are morally and legally responsible for them, but even then at some point I believe that their wishes must be honored.
IMO it depends on circumstances. Let's say someone is critically injured in an auto accident and the paramedics arrive at the scene. The severely injured person is conscious and refuses medical treatment. Do the paramedics honor such a request? I don't think so. For one thing, this injured person is probably in a state of severe shock. Conscious or unconscious, I believe the paramedics will render the patient all possible life-saving medical assistence in such a scenario, and I support such intervention.

On the other hand, if a patient with a terminal condition makes it known that no extraordinary measures should be taken to preserve their life... I believe such a request should be honored.
 
IMO it depends on circumstances. Let's say someone is critically injured in an auto accident and the paramedics arrive at the scene. The severely injured person is conscious and refuses medical treatment. Do the paramedics honor such a request? I don't think so. For one thing, this injured person is probably in a state of severe shock. Conscious or unconscious, I believe the paramedics will render the patient all possible life-saving medical assistence in such a scenario, and I support such intervention.

On the other hand, if a patient with a terminal condition makes it known that no extraordinary measures should be taken to preserve their life... I believe such a request should be honored.

No one can force you to be taken to the hospital.
If you tell the paramedics "No" they have to stop treatment.
Now if your unconscious they will treat you and take you to the hospital but even then if you have a "Living will" the DR has to obey that.
 
No one can force you to be taken to the hospital.
If you tell the paramedics "No" they have to stop treatment.
Perhaps they do things differently in Florida, but I have never seen paramedics leave a critically injured person in the street and head back to the barn.

Now if your unconscious they will treat you and take you to the hospital but even then if you have a "Living will" the DR has to obey that.
I do agree with that.
 
IMO it depends on circumstances. Let's say someone is critically injured in an auto accident and the paramedics arrive at the scene. The severely injured person is conscious and refuses medical treatment. Do the paramedics honor such a request? I don't think so. For one thing, this injured person is probably in a state of severe shock.

I suppose I must make a concession for immediate and short-term incompetence-- though I am concerned about how long such a legal condition can be extended, because we have all seen the lengths to which government will go to keep people involuntarily alive.

For instance, declaring a person "mentally incompetent" because of their desire to die, so that their legal right to refuse treatment is suspended.

On the other hand, if a patient with a terminal condition makes it known that no extraordinary measures should be taken to preserve their life... I believe such a request should be honored.

I do not think it should require a "terminal condition", or a government-approved professional's declaration of a terminal condition. We are all dying, whether we know the cause yet or not. We should be allowed to make our medical decisions-- have our wishes respected-- any time that we are capable of making decisions.
 
Perhaps they do things differently in Florida, but I have never seen paramedics leave a critically injured person in the street and head back to the barn.

I’ve witnessed it several times with car accidents.
BUT a cop could try to work in "baker activation" some how...??

When I was bitten by a rattlesnake my brother in law called the paramedics but I refused treatment from them and refused to allow them to take me to the hospital.

My wife drove me and I didn’t have to pay an ambulance bill.....;)
 
I do not think it should require a "terminal condition", or a government-approved professional's declaration of a terminal condition. We are all dying, whether we know the cause yet or not. We should be allowed to make our medical decisions-- have our wishes respected-- any time that we are capable of making decisions.
Lol. I really don't want to parse each word, but let me clarify my position. If a dying conscous patient makes it known that they do not wish medical treatment, I am fine with that. If an unconscious dying patient authored a document when they were conscious stipulating the same, I am fine with that also.

cherokee said:
My wife drove me and I didn’t have to pay an ambulance bill.....;)
Risky but understandable. :2wave:
 
You are asking the wrong question.

If you are ill-- possibly even dying-- but you are still mentally capable of refusing treatment and physically capable of making your wishes known... should anyone, be it your family, your doctor, or the government, be allowed to hold you against your will and force you to submit to medical treatment?

I cannot support this. It is kidnapping and assault at the very least.

Now, if this is unacceptable to you... what is the difference between overriding someone's wishes when they are conscious, and waiting until they are helpless to do so? Their helplessness does not make it morally more tolerable.

The only exception I will grant to this is children, whose parents are morally and legally responsible for them, but even then at some point I believe that their wishes must be honored.

I agree with Korymir on all but the last; I think critically ill children should have mainstream medical treatment, regardless of whether their parents prefer that they forego it in favor of alternative medicine, prayer, or whatever.
 
I agree with Korymir on all but the last; I think critically ill children should have mainstream medical treatment, regardless of whether their parents prefer that they forego it in favor of alternative medicine, prayer, or whatever.

Agree completely. Since the children might not be able to chose for themselves, depending on age and dependance, it should be provided, if critically ill, regardless of parental intent.

As for other situations, I'll echo what I've heard here, a couple of times. One who is conscious and rational should have the right to refuse medical treatment for themselves. If either one or both of those factors don't apply, even temporarily, medical treatment should be provided.
 
In general, yes they should. However, there are extreme cases when medical treatment should be forced if refused.
 
In general, yes they should. However, there are extreme cases when medical treatment should be forced if refused.

Could you give some examples of what sort of 'extreme situations" you're referring to?
 
^^ First that comes to mind is severe eating disorders. Also different mental conditions that could make a person dangerous to other people. Obviously there would go a lot of research into it before forcing someone to treatment.
 
^^ First that comes to mind is severe eating disorders. Also different mental conditions that could make a person dangerous to other people. Obviously there would go a lot of research into it before forcing someone to treatment.

Adults with severe eating disorders are not treated against their will, because unless they are cooperative and receptive to treatment, treatment is not effective and often worsens their condition; therefore, it is both unhelpful and a waste of resources.
People develop eating disorders in response to feeling a lack of control over their lives, in an attempt to exercise control over the one thing they can control: their own bodies.
Treating them involuntarily, by force, would do nothing to address the root of the problem and would only reinforce and exacerbate their feelings of powerlessness, causing them to work twice as hard at starving themselves, and be even sneakier about it.
The best way to address eating disorders is to correct the problems in society that cause, influence, or exacerbate them.
 
Yes, except in cases of immediate critical trauma as noted above, and in cases where the risk of infection or injury is extended beyond that person (i.e. I'm arguing for mandatory immunizations.
 
I agree with Korymir on all but the last; I think critically ill children should have mainstream medical treatment, regardless of whether their parents prefer that they forego it in favor of alternative medicine, prayer, or whatever.

To what end, if they are terminally ill? Should they be kept alive until they turn 18 and are granted the legal right to die?

I agree that parents should be required to get proper healthcare for their children-- though I am uncomfortable with this position for several reasons-- but I cannot support keeping a child alive to suffer needlessly anymore than I can support doing so for an adult or an animal. Even assuming the best of motives, most doctors struggle to keep their patients alive as long as possible regardless of the hardship it causes them or the pointlessness of success.

When a parent and a doctor disagree over a course of treatment, who should be given the final say? And how much input should the patient be given, should the patient's wishes contradict the parents, the doctor, or both?

I agree with you that we cannot simply allow people to allow their children to die for lack of proper treatment. However... I can't support giving full authority over these matters to strangers, either.
 
Yes, except in cases ... where the risk of infection or injury is extended beyond that person (i.e. I'm arguing for mandatory immunizations.

I will agree with this. Refusing to treat communicable diseases, and willfully allowing them to spread, should be treated the same as deliberately infecting people with them.

However, would you agree that when immunization is mandatory, the government is morally and legally responsible for the consequences of side-effects of those immunizations? Salk's vaccine left a lot of children crippled and more modern vaccines still leave a small percentage of children autistic.
 
I will agree with this. Refusing to treat communicable diseases, and willfully allowing them to spread, should be treated the same as deliberately infecting people with them.

However, would you agree that when immunization is mandatory, the government is morally and legally responsible for the consequences of side-effects of those immunizations? Salk's vaccine left a lot of children crippled and more modern vaccines still leave a small percentage of children autistic.

In fact, a very tiny percentage of children die from immunizations, and nearly all kids get sick from them, to one degree or another, at least for a few days; feverish, fussy and cranky.
It's scary to have your kids immunized, but it's necessary. It's one of those things where you have to take a miniscule chance with your childrens' lives in order both to protect society from communicable disease and to protect your kids from a bigger risk- the risk of contracting these diseases later in life.
Although there have been rumors of autism resulting from the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella), there is not a definitive causal link.
The MMR vaccine is usually given at about 12-15 months of age; that is also about the time when symptoms of autism first become apparent (because the child is not reaching the expected developmental milestones).
Corellation does not, however, equal causation.
True, more cases of autism have been diagnosed in recent years, but that does not mean there are more cases of autism; it might just as easily indicate that many cases went undiagnosed or misdiagnosed in previous eras.
I've met an amazing number of people lately who supposedly have Asperger's Syndrome (a high-functioning autism), and they seem normal to me. A little quirky, perhaps, but not what I'd think of as "autistic".
It's perfectly possible that until the 90s, people on the higher-functioning end of the autism spectrum were simply not recognized as suffering from any diagnosable or treatable pathology, and if anything were simply thought of as being a little bit eccentric or idiosyncratic.
 
I will agree with this. Refusing to treat communicable diseases, and willfully allowing them to spread, should be treated the same as deliberately infecting people with them.

However, would you agree that when immunization is mandatory, the government is morally and legally responsible for the consequences of side-effects of those immunizations? Salk's vaccine left a lot of children crippled and more modern vaccines still leave a small percentage of children autistic.

I would tend to agree with that in principle, but then I remember the type of nation that we live in. Let's say that this policy is set into place, and then we find out 20 years down the road that the MMR vaccine DID in fact have some slight impact on autism rates. Whether or not the benefit it gave to the society as a whole outweighed the cost, we'd have every single parent of an autistic child suing the gov for 25 million.

I think this is one of the rare areas where the government can force people to participate in a program against their will, and simply argue that any harm done was not preventable or predictable.
 
It's scary to have your kids immunized, but it's necessary. It's one of those things where you have to take a miniscule chance with your childrens' lives in order both to protect society from communicable disease and to protect your kids from a bigger risk- the risk of contracting these diseases later in life.

I agree, and I would have my own children vaccinated if given the option; even despite my severe misgivings, I still support mandatory vaccinations.

However... there is a difference between a miniscule risk that I decide must be taken with my child's life, and a miniscule risk that someone else decides must be taken-- and will be forced upon my child regardless of my objections. I don't necessarily trust lawmakers or doctors to act in my-- or my child's-- best interests, so I am suspicious of giving them the authority to make medical decisions for people they are not directly responsible for.

True, more cases of autism have been diagnosed in recent years, but that does not mean there are more cases of autism; it might just as easily indicate that many cases went undiagnosed or misdiagnosed in previous eras.

To my knowledge, the recent-- and drastic-- increase in diagnoses of autism does not include Asperger's; Asperger's is usually treated as a distinct diagnosis despite being a milder form of autism.

I'll concede that there has been no definite proof of a causal link between the MMR vaccinations and autism. However, I also have not heard it being attributed as a cause of mild autism or Asperger's; all the cases I've read about have been severe.
 
Back
Top Bottom