Consent to Medical Treatment : a Neglected Right of the Patient

Abstract

It is generally accepted that doctors have various legal duties towards their patients as a result of the principles of autonomy and self-determination. One of the most significant duties is the duty not to treat or detain a patient without consent or lawful justification. Thus, a competent adult patent has a right to decide what procedure will be done with his or her body and a doctor has a duty to respect that right. Breach of this duty may cause the doctor to be sued on the grounds of trespass both in civil and criminal basis, even if the doctor is not at fault and the patient has suffered no injury.
Therefore, this article firstly considers the source of the doctor’ร duty and the right of the patient that enable such a duty to be enforced. The basic principles of consent are then explained, so far as they are relevant to medical practice. By pursuant to the consensual fundamentals, patients have a legally enforceable right not to be subjected to an invasive procedure without consent or other lawful justification. Yet, it appears that in some day-to-day practices, doctors often treat patients without obtaining their legal consent; for example, because their patients are very sick or disabled. Thus, the issue of in what extent the non-consensual treatment is legal is subsequently taken into account. Furthermore, the medical dilemma in Thailand is examined whether it is pursuant to the general principle of medical laws. In conclusion, the clarification is of comfort to the doctor faced with the difficult decisions about treatment they believe that is necessary for a patient when it is not possible to obtain the appropriate consent.