Biomedical Ethics Case Study: Scott Starson's Refusal of Treatment while Being Incompetent
Scott Starson: Refusing treatment while Incompetent…
Date Submitted: Monday, November 23rd 2014
Course: Biomedical Ethics (online class)
Scott Starson, a brilliant physicist has been in and out of mental institutions due to his bipolar disorder. He was lastly admitted again after he made death threats to his roommates and was found not criminally responsible for that offense. His physicians suggested different sorts of treatment for his illness. Scott Starson refused to give consent to the treatment for reason that he had a scientific research to finish and he didn’t want the medications to slow him down. His physicians not finding him competent enough to critically make that kind of decision, brought the case before a medical review board, which afterwards also confirmed that Mr Starson was not competent enough to decide whether to reject or accept the treatment. Mr Starson unhappy with the decision, applied for a review to the Ontario consent and capacity board (CcB) –The CcB’s mission is to fairly review/judge the different consent and capacity issues while balancing both the rights of vulnerable individuals1– In this case they had to review if Mr. Starson had the required capacity to accept or refuse treatment based on the health care consent act.
After studying the case, the Ccb also agreed with the physicians that Starson was not capable to appreciate the outcome of the administered treatment and their decision was based on the following consent: “ The Ontario Health Care Consent Act permitted a person to be treated without consent on the ground of lack of capacity (the ability to make an informed choice), if it was found that they could not understand the information relevant to making a decision about treatment and could not appreciate the reasonable foreseeable consequences of that decision.” 2 The case was finally appealed to the supreme court of Canada for a conclusive decision. The court agreed with the act/law that guided
Date Submitted: Monday, November 23rd 2014
Course: Biomedical Ethics (online class)
Scott Starson, a brilliant physicist has been in and out of mental institutions due to his bipolar disorder. He was lastly admitted again after he made death threats to his roommates and was found not criminally responsible for that offense. His physicians suggested different sorts of treatment for his illness. Scott Starson refused to give consent to the treatment for reason that he had a scientific research to finish and he didn’t want the medications to slow him down. His physicians not finding him competent enough to critically make that kind of decision, brought the case before a medical review board, which afterwards also confirmed that Mr Starson was not competent enough to decide whether to reject or accept the treatment. Mr Starson unhappy with the decision, applied for a review to the Ontario consent and capacity board (CcB) –The CcB’s mission is to fairly review/judge the different consent and capacity issues while balancing both the rights of vulnerable individuals1– In this case they had to review if Mr. Starson had the required capacity to accept or refuse treatment based on the health care consent act.
After studying the case, the Ccb also agreed with the physicians that Starson was not capable to appreciate the outcome of the administered treatment and their decision was based on the following consent: “ The Ontario Health Care Consent Act permitted a person to be treated without consent on the ground of lack of capacity (the ability to make an informed choice), if it was found that they could not understand the information relevant to making a decision about treatment and could not appreciate the reasonable foreseeable consequences of that decision.” 2 The case was finally appealed to the supreme court of Canada for a conclusive decision. The court agreed with the act/law that guided
Bibliography: