Legal Rights of Patients

Since the justification of patients` rights depends on the ethical principles that preceded them, moral principles are discussed first, followed by a discussion of how they lead to patients` related rights. The roots of informed consent come from the aforementioned social contract theorists of the 1600s and 1700s. In this social construct, patients own their bodies (their “property”). Medical therapies may have a real opportunity to damage this property. Thus, patients have the right to decide independently what risks and costs their bodies will face. The zero hypothesis of doctors for most of the history of Western medicine has been that the patient is interested in the plan they think is best. In contrast, hypothesis zero according to the moral philosophy of autonomy is that the physician has no way of knowing what patients want and must allow patients to decide for themselves whenever the patient has the mental capacity to do so. U.S. courts have concluded that a risk of harm of only 1% must be declared to the patient prior to treatment if this harm results in death or a life-changing complication such as paralysis (Canterbury v. Spence). Many North American laws protect various patient rights. In 1984, Canada passed the Canada Health Act.

In 1986, the United States passed 42 Code of Federal Regulations § 482.13, which established a list of patient rights that hospitals must grant patients to be eligible for Medicare reimbursement. In 2005, Mexico adopted article 4 as part of its national constitution. In 2010, the United States improved patients` rights by passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In the United States, the right to informed consent is protected to some extent by laws at both the state and federal levels. 42 CFR § 482.13 states that “the patient or his representative (as permitted by state law) has the right to make informed decisions about his or her treatment. One of the rights of the patient is to be informed about his state of health, to be involved in the planning of care and treatment. Almost all states have laws that provide more detail than the U.S. Congress regarding the details of consent rights in their respective jurisdictions.

However, due to the vagueness of consent rights established by the executive, the judiciary is generally the branch that enforces informed consent rights in the context of patients` tort claims against health care providers. Generally established rights tend to derive from a fundamental set of ethical principles, including patient autonomy, charity, non-malevolence, (distributive) justice, the patient-provider fiduciary (trust) relationship, and the inviolability of human life. Determining whether one principle has greater inherent value than another is a philosophical undertaking that varies from authority to authority. In many situations, beliefs can conflict directly with each other. If there is no legal standard, it remains the duty of the health care provider to prioritize these principles in order to achieve an acceptable outcome for the patient. The health and well-being of patients depends on the cooperation between patient and doctor in a mutually respectful alliance. Patients contribute to this alliance as they fulfill their responsibilities, seek care and are open with their physicians. Establishing clearly defined patient rights helps standardize care across all areas of health care and allows patients to have consistent expectations during their treatment.

According to the American Cancer Society, organizations should develop patient bills of rights “to enable people to play an active role in improving their health, strengthen people`s relationships with their health care providers [and] establish patients` rights in their dealings with insurance companies and other specific health insurance situations.” As with other bills of rights, modern patients` rights state that individuals can expect some treatment regardless of their socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, gender or ethnicity. Physicians can better contribute to the mutually respectful treatment of patients by advocating for their patients and respecting patients` rights. This includes the right: “Rights are not rights if someone can take them away. These are privileges. – George Carlin, “It`s Bad for Ya,” 1. March 2008. Continuity of care refers to a patient`s ability to choose future relationships with health care providers. A patient has the right to play a role in accepting or rejecting referrals to certain specialists and home treatment plans. This is in the best interest of the patient (charity), as it allows the patient to make decisions about their own treatment (autonomy).

In addition, continuity of care helps maintain a fiduciary relationship between patient and physician. Joint decision-making between physician and patient is improved if care continues beyond the first meeting. Continuity of care also requires that a patient be provided with an explanation of how to maintain health beyond the hospital or clinical setting. If a transfer to another facility or provider is necessary, the patient is entitled to an explanation of why it is necessary. In the United States, continuity of care is not currently a legal right, but the Affordable Care Act has created payment incentives for organizations to promote continuity of care. Scientific advances have made it possible to study the development of the human fetus and the possibilities of caring for sick and dying adults to a more advanced extent than was possible for ethicists of previous centuries. The question of the modern debate is no longer when an embryo is biologically human, but when the rights as such are granted to it. Similarly, in many cases, doctors no longer ask themselves how to prolong the life of a suffering individual, but whether it is the morally right decision to do so. There have been cases where patients have been declared clinically dead or in a persistent vegetative state, but then regained consciousness. [3] It is not possible to determine when a soul leaves a body. Note: If you need information about patient rights for residents of a county mental health facility, please refer to the California Department of Health Care Services Patient Rights at PatientsRights@dhcs.ca.gov Common sense dictates that rights established to protect the well-being of an individual do not always outweigh the well-being of a collective society. A current applicable phenomenon includes measures taken by authorities to minimize public illnesses caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus, such as the use of vaccines and masking of the respiratory tract.

In principle, medical therapy always consists of determining the benefit-risk ratio. The objective of this article is not to establish heuristics or ethical and legal algorithms to prioritize actions to minimize public health risks that simultaneously expose individuals to theoretical risks. While the Cyrus Cylinder (dating from the 530s BC) is an exception, writings on human rights are a relatively late development of civilization. The Magna Carta (1215 AD) first established political rights for citizens living in Western society. However, human rights did not enter Western scientific or philosophical circles until the 1600s and 1700s through scouts such as John Locke. While patients had previously been allowed to establish “rights” through civil lawsuits against their healthcare providers after adverse outcomes (1374 CE)[1], the first political body to establish potential rights for patients was the First Geneva Convention (1864) on behalf of wounded soldiers.