Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;47(1):47-50.
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105792. Epub 2020 Jan 7.

How should the 'privilege' in therapeutic privilege be conceived when considering the decision-making process for patients with borderline capacity?

Affiliations

How should the 'privilege' in therapeutic privilege be conceived when considering the decision-making process for patients with borderline capacity?

Sumytra Menon et al. J Med Ethics. 2021 Jan.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. 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].
    1. Hii Chii Kok v London Lucien Ooi, [2017] SGCA 38.
    1. 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].
    1. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, [2015] 1 AC 1430.
    1. Tai v Saxon [1996] No 23/95, Western Australian Supreme Court (unreported).