A patient has the right to refuse treatment, including life-sustaining therapy, if competent. Which statement is true?

A patient has the right to refuse treatment, including life-sustaining therapy, if competent. Which statement is true?

• A. True; patients may refuse life-sustaining treatment if competent.
• B. False; patients cannot refuse life-sustaining therapy.
• C. Physicians can override patient wishes.
• D. Refusal of treatment is illegal.

Answer: (A)

At the heart of this question is patient autonomy and capacity. A competent adult has the legal and ethical right to refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining therapy, if they understand the options and consequences and can communicate a clear choice. Competence means the patient can appreciate how the decision affects their situation, weigh the alternatives, and convey a consistent preference. When someone is competent, the physician’s duty is to respect that decision, document it, and refrain from forcing treatment, even if the outcome might be death. If a patient lacks decision-making capacity, a surrogate decision-maker steps in to decide, using substituted judgment or the patient’s best interests. This distinction explains why the other statements aren’t correct: they imply the patient’s wishes can be overridden, or that refusing treatment is illegal, which conflicts with established ethical and legal norms. In short, the true statement is that competent patients may refuse life-sustaining treatment.

At the heart of this question is patient autonomy and capacity. A competent adult has the legal and ethical right to refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining therapy, if they understand the options and consequences and can communicate a clear choice. Competence means the patient can appreciate how the decision affects their situation, weigh the alternatives, and convey a consistent preference. When someone is competent, the physician’s duty is to respect that decision, document it, and refrain from forcing treatment, even if the outcome might be death.

If a patient lacks decision-making capacity, a surrogate decision-maker steps in to decide, using substituted judgment or the patient’s best interests. This distinction explains why the other statements aren’t correct: they imply the patient’s wishes can be overridden, or that refusing treatment is illegal, which conflicts with established ethical and legal norms.

In short, the true statement is that competent patients may refuse life-sustaining treatment.