Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Biomedical Ethics & the Law

By Robert C. Solomon, M.D., Medical Editor in Chief, ACEP News | on October 1, 2013 | 0 Comment
Opinion
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

‘While I consider it important to avoid violating the law in my practice of medicine, I consider it even more important to avoid violating principles of biomedical ethics.’

You Might Also Like
  • Who’s in Charge of Our Health? The Ethics of Patient Responsibility
  • ‘Let’s Talk’: Approaches to Refusal of Care in the ED
  • The ACEP Code of Ethics, Past and Future
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 32 – No 10 – October 2013

The two principles here are beneficence (the duty to help the patient) and autonomy (the patient’s right to make his own decisions about what happens to him). In the United States (and some other Western societies) autonomy is placed at the top of the hierarchy. This means if one is going to do something that violates patient autonomy, there must be a very good reason. The most common such reason is that the person is mentally ill and intends to harm himself or others. In such a situation, there is agreement that the duty to protect the patient (and possibly others) from harm takes priority over the duty to respect his individual autonomy.

Another common situation is one in which a patient wishes to refuse treatment or to leave a hospital against medical advice. Sometimes such a decision may place the patient in peril of serious harm. So, for example, if someone is having a heart attack, there is a very real risk of sudden death or severe, permanent disability attendant upon a decision to refuse treatment and leave the hospital. But we do not violate the patient’s autonomy and prevent him from leaving, except….

We make an exception for lack of decisional capacity. And to do that we must understand what decisional capacity is and how to assess it.

Let us use the example of the heart attack. If you are having a heart attack and decide to refuse treatment and leave the hospital, my first priority is to try to change your mind. I will explain my treatment recommendations and the risks you are assuming by rejecting them. I will enlist the aid of those whose opinions or feelings mean more to you than mine: your family or friends, or your personal physician. (Maybe even your nurse, because she has impressed you as a warm and caring person, and you have no suspicion that anything she tells you is motivated by pecuniary gain.)

I will try to find out why you want to ignore sound medical advice and whether you have concerns that can be effectively addressed. If you say you cannot stay in the hospital because there will be no one to feed your dog, I will try to figure out how we can get somebody to feed your dog. I will point out that if you die, your dog will be worse off than going hungry for a little while and tell you that in the wild, dogs go for days without eating, and that’s why even domesticated dogs typically eat like they’ve had nothing to eat for a long time, and don’t know when the next meal is coming, every time a bowl of food is put in front of them.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Topics: EthicsIntoxicationLawWisdom of Solomon

Related

  • Let Core Values Help Guide Patient Care

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Management of ED Crowding versus Mass Casualty Incidents: Is There an Ethical Difference?

    August 4, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Using Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Life-Sustaining Therapy

    June 30, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “Biomedical Ethics & the Law”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603