The Right to Refuse Treatment
The right of the individual to refuse both psychiatric treatment as well as medical treatment has been the subject of numerous court cases. The right of the individual to make their own decision regarding treatment remains true most the time. However, several cases have brought into question just how far that right extends, and to what degree to court should protect that right. The three pivotal cases for this study involve different questions about the right to refuse treatment, each requiring a decision to be made, and each setting a new legal precedent by defining limitations on when a patient should be forced to undergo treatment without their consent.
The first question, raised in the Application of …show more content…
In 1964 at Georgetown College’s medical center, a woman by the name of Rosie E. Jones had been brought in suffering from a ruptured ulcer. She had lost a significant amount of her body’s blood supply. The loss of blood was enough that she had become unable to move, or to respond to her treatment team. Doctors were concerned that if she did not undergo an immediate blood transfusion, she would likely die. (Cunningham) It would seem logical that the patient would agree to whatever treatment those medical professionals were recommending. But in the case of Rosie E. Jones, it would not be so simple. (jrank.org) As Mrs. Jones’ condition continued to deteriorate, the doctors from Georgetown Medical Center informed her that without a blood transfusion, she likely would die. The problem was that Mrs. Jones was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe, according to their website jw.com, that “God views blood as representing life” and that members should avoid taking blood “not only in obedience to God, but also out of respect for him as the giver of life.” (jw.com) Since Mrs. Jones had become unable to respond verbally, her husband was consulted, who refused the treatment. Jones did utter what seemed to sound like “against my …show more content…
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the necessity to consider the least intrusive alternative but reversed the requirement of a judicial hearing (Rennie v. Klein, 1981). The Third Circuit decided that New Jersey 's administrative procedures for determining the appropriateness of involuntary medication were sufficient to protect a patient 's due process rights. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari but, as with the case described below, ultimately did not decide the issue but remanded it back to the Circuit Court of Appeals considering intervening decisions (Rennie v. Klein, 1981). While Rennie was being adjudicated in New Jersey, a class action suit raising similar issues was being considered in Massachusetts. Rubie Rogers and other committed patients at the Boston State Hospital claimed that forced medication and involuntary seclusion in nonemergency situations were violations of their constitutional rights. After a prolonged trial in the U.S. District Court, the judge ruled (Rogers v. Okin, 1979) that committed patients had a right (grounded in the Right of Privacy and a First Amendment "right to produce a thought" [p. 1367]) to refuse medication in nonemergency situations. (Mrad)
The appellate court reverted to the original court decision in this case, which brought up several important questions that must be asked prior to forcing a patient to undergo “psychotropic”
The right of the individual to refuse both psychiatric treatment as well as medical treatment has been the subject of numerous court cases. The right of the individual to make their own decision regarding treatment remains true most the time. However, several cases have brought into question just how far that right extends, and to what degree to court should protect that right. The three pivotal cases for this study involve different questions about the right to refuse treatment, each requiring a decision to be made, and each setting a new legal precedent by defining limitations on when a patient should be forced to undergo treatment without their consent.
The first question, raised in the Application of …show more content…
In 1964 at Georgetown College’s medical center, a woman by the name of Rosie E. Jones had been brought in suffering from a ruptured ulcer. She had lost a significant amount of her body’s blood supply. The loss of blood was enough that she had become unable to move, or to respond to her treatment team. Doctors were concerned that if she did not undergo an immediate blood transfusion, she would likely die. (Cunningham) It would seem logical that the patient would agree to whatever treatment those medical professionals were recommending. But in the case of Rosie E. Jones, it would not be so simple. (jrank.org) As Mrs. Jones’ condition continued to deteriorate, the doctors from Georgetown Medical Center informed her that without a blood transfusion, she likely would die. The problem was that Mrs. Jones was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe, according to their website jw.com, that “God views blood as representing life” and that members should avoid taking blood “not only in obedience to God, but also out of respect for him as the giver of life.” (jw.com) Since Mrs. Jones had become unable to respond verbally, her husband was consulted, who refused the treatment. Jones did utter what seemed to sound like “against my …show more content…
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the necessity to consider the least intrusive alternative but reversed the requirement of a judicial hearing (Rennie v. Klein, 1981). The Third Circuit decided that New Jersey 's administrative procedures for determining the appropriateness of involuntary medication were sufficient to protect a patient 's due process rights. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari but, as with the case described below, ultimately did not decide the issue but remanded it back to the Circuit Court of Appeals considering intervening decisions (Rennie v. Klein, 1981). While Rennie was being adjudicated in New Jersey, a class action suit raising similar issues was being considered in Massachusetts. Rubie Rogers and other committed patients at the Boston State Hospital claimed that forced medication and involuntary seclusion in nonemergency situations were violations of their constitutional rights. After a prolonged trial in the U.S. District Court, the judge ruled (Rogers v. Okin, 1979) that committed patients had a right (grounded in the Right of Privacy and a First Amendment "right to produce a thought" [p. 1367]) to refuse medication in nonemergency situations. (Mrad)
The appellate court reverted to the original court decision in this case, which brought up several important questions that must be asked prior to forcing a patient to undergo “psychotropic”