International comparison of physicians' attitudes toward refusal of treatment by patients with anorexia nervosa: a case-based vignette study

• Published in: Journal of eating disorders 2022-06, Vol.10 (1), p.86-86, Article 86
• Main Author: Takimoto, Yoshiyuki
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anorexia; Anorexia nervosa; Attitudes; Bias; Clinical ethics; Comparative analysis; Compulsory treatment; Consent; Decision-making; Eating disorders; Ethics; Health facilities; Hospitalization; Medical ethics; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Mental capacity; Patients; Patients' rights; Physicians; Psychiatrists; Public opinion; Questionnaires; Response rates; Self destructive behavior; Statistical analysis; Surveys; Treatment refusal
• ISSN: 2050-2974; 2050-2974
• DOI: 10.1186/s40337-022-00613-x

This study investigated the attitudes of physicians in Japan, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) toward refusal of treatment for anorexia nervosa. A questionnaire survey was administered to physicians treating patients with eating disorder (Japan, n = 55; UK, n = 84; US, n = 82) to evaluate their treatment strategies for fictitious cases of refusal of treatment for anorexia nervosa. For acute patients, 53 (96.3%) physicians in Japan, 65 (77.4%) in the UK, and 54 (65.9%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the patient's family requested treatment, while 46 (83.6%) physicians in Japan, 53 (63.1%) in the UK, and 47 (57.3%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the family left the decision to the patient. For severe and enduring anorexia nervosa, 53 (96.3%) physicians in Japan, 62 (73.8%) in the UK, and 57 (69.5%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the patient's family requested treatment, while 38 (69.1%) physicians in Japan, 56 (66.7%) in the UK, and 55 (67.1%) in the US chose compulsory treatment if the family left the decision to the patient. Physicians in all three countries tended to choose compulsory treatment irrespective of disease duration or whether the patient's family requested treatment or not. This may indicate that medical practitioners value the ethical obligation of beneficence, giving priority to the protection of life. Attitudes toward refusal of treatment during a life crisis tend to vary among medical professionals, particularly if the patient's family does not request treatment.