Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:26:43.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Refusals of Medical Care in the Home Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Extract

The home setting presents particular problems in assessing a client/patient's ability to refuse suggested medical care. Home is familiar; it is associated with relaxation and not with the mobilization required to combar anxiety, uncertainty, illness and pain. In the home family members may be overly involved or controlling. Especially in the situation of elderly siblings with long combined histories, there may be shared peculiarities or even shared personaliry disorders which complicate an individual's choice of care. The home, because it is familiar, may maximize patient orientation but may also support denial of illness; the patient/client may reason “If I'm home, I'm really not ill.” In contrast, hospitals and long-term care facilities are intimidating and infantilizing institutions that tend to undercut personal resolve and challenge denial.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barry, Patricia P., Crescenzi, Caroline A. et al, “Why Elderly Patients Refuse Hospitalization”, Journal of the American Geriatric Society, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 1988, p. 419424; at 420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Making Health Care Decisions, Vol. One, Report: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practitioner Relationship, The President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1982. See also, Callahan, Daniel, “Autonomy: A Moral Good, Not a Moral Obsession”, The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 14, pp. 4042, October 1984; Drane, James F., “The Many Faces of Competency”, The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 15, pp. 17 – 21, April 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abernethy, Virginia, “Compassion, Control and Decisions about Competency”, American journal of Psychiatry 141: 1, January 1984, pp. 5360.Google Scholar
Informed Consent: Decisional Capacity, The State of Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Mary C. Northern, in Arras, John and Rhoden, Nancy, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, Third Edition, Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, California, 1989, 7279.Google Scholar
Arras & Rhoden, 72.Google Scholar
Arras & Rhoden, 74.Google Scholar
New York State Mental Hygiene Law Section 9.27.Google Scholar
N.Y.S. MHL Section 9.37Google Scholar
N.Y.S. Conservatorship Laws.Google Scholar