Pragmatic argument for an acceptance-refusal asymmetry in competence requirements

In 2016, this Journal published an article by Rob Lawlor1 on what we might call the acceptance-refusal asymmetry in competence requirements. This is the view that there can be cases in which a patient is sufficiently competent to accept a treatment (viz., to give consent to it), but not sufficiently...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical ethics 2022-11, Vol.48 (11), p.799-800
Main Author: Douglas, Thomas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dissent and Disputes
Editorial
Ethics- Medical
Humans
Legal medicine
Medical ethics
Mental Competency
Patients rights
Treatment Refusal
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In 2016, this Journal published an article by Rob Lawlor1 on what we might call the acceptance-refusal asymmetry in competence requirements. This is the view that there can be cases in which a patient is sufficiently competent to accept a treatment (viz., to give consent to it), but not sufficiently competent to refuse it (viz., to withhold consent to it). Though the main purpose of Lawlor’s paper was to distinguish this asymmetry from various other asymmetries with which it has sometimes been confused,1Lawlor also presented a brief case in favour of it. Developing an earlier argument of Ian Wilks’,2 3 Lawlor argued that, when the risks associated with refusing a treatment are graver than those associated with accepting it, a higher level of competence may be required to refuse a treatment than to accept it.
ISSN:0306-6800
1473-4257
DOI:10.1136/jme-2022-108662