How should the 'privilege' in therapeutic privilege be conceived when considering the decision-making process for patients with borderline capacity?
- PMID: 31911500
- PMCID: PMC7803884
- DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105792
How should the 'privilege' in therapeutic privilege be conceived when considering the decision-making process for patients with borderline capacity?
Abstract
Therapeutic privilege (TP) is a defence that may be available to doctors who fail to disclose to the patient relevant information when seeking informed consent for treatment if they have a reasonable belief that providing that information would likely cause the patient concerned serious physical or mental harm. In a landmark judgement, the Singapore Court of Appeal introduced a novel interpretation of TP, identifying circumstances in which it might be used with patients who did not strictly lack capacity but might be inclined to refuse recommended treatments. In this paper, we explore the conceptual and practical challenges of this novel interpretation of TP. We propose that more emphasis should be placed on forms of shared and supported decision-making that foster the autonomy of patients with compromised mental capacity while being mindful of the need to safeguard their well-being. The kind of privilege that doctors might need to invoke is one of time and supportive expertise to ensure a flexible, responsive approach calibrated to the individual patients' needs. The provision of such service would extinguish the need for the novel TP proposed by the Singapore Court of Appeal.
Keywords: autonomy; capacity; decision-making; ethics.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Similar articles
-
The Privilege of Information-An Examination of the Defence of Therapeutic Privilege and its Implications for Pregnant Women.Med Law Rev. 2021 Dec 6;29(4):639-660. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwab035. Med Law Rev. 2021. PMID: 34554244
-
[The origin of informed consent].Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005. PMID: 16602332 Italian.
-
Between the Reasonable and the Particular: Deflating Autonomy in the Legal Regulation of Informed Consent to Medical Treatment.Health Care Anal. 2019 Jun;27(2):110-127. doi: 10.1007/s10728-018-0358-x. Health Care Anal. 2019. PMID: 29961214
-
Is informed consent a "yes or no" response? Enhancing the shared decision-making process for persons with aphasia.Top Stroke Rehabil. 2006 Fall;13(4):42-6. doi: 10.1310/tsr1304-42. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2006. PMID: 17082168 Review.
-
The mental capacity act: implications for patients and doctors faced with difficult choices.Ann Acad Med Singap. 2013 Apr;42(4):200-2. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2013. PMID: 23677215 Review.
Cited by
-
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: Therapeutic privilege.J Postgrad Med. 2022 Jul-Sep;68(3):152-155. doi: 10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_1146_21. J Postgrad Med. 2022. PMID: 35975340 Free PMC article.
-
Supported Decision Making With People at the Margins of Autonomy.Am J Bioeth. 2021 Nov;21(11):4-18. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1863507. Epub 2020 Dec 29. Am J Bioeth. 2021. PMID: 33372858 Free PMC article.
-
Decision-Making Capacity to Refuse Treatment at the End of Life: The Need for Recognizing Real-World Practices.Clin Pract. 2022 Sep 22;12(5):760-765. doi: 10.3390/clinpract12050079. Clin Pract. 2022. PMID: 36286065 Free PMC article.
References
-
- House of Lords select Committee on the mental capacity act. Report of session 2013–14: mental capacity act 2005: Post-legislative scrutiny. HL paper 139. Available: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldmentalcap/139/... [Accessed 29 May 2019].
-
- Hii Chii Kok v London Lucien Ooi, [2017] SGCA 38.
-
- United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities General Comment No. 1: article 12: equality before the law. eleventh session, 2014. Available: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/031/20/PDF/G1403120.pd... [Accessed 29 May 2019].
-
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, [2015] 1 AC 1430.
-
- Tai v Saxon [1996] No 23/95, Western Australian Supreme Court (unreported).
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources