The law did not agree on one position of the principle of "infallibility of the body".
1 - There are those who believe that the will of the person comes in the first place, it has sovereignty and dominance, regardless of the results that can lead to it. And then gave the owners of this view the adult who shows the reality of his illness to refuse treatment, even if this situation leads to death !. It is not permissible - in this opinion - to force the patient, and the rejection of his refusal, and the imposition of treatment. In the face of the patient's refusal, the doctor must refrain from interfering because the use of force or violence is prohibited. From the moment that the advice goes beyond coercion, it violates one of the basic principles of the law. This, of course, if the patient has seen the results of rejection .. It is not permissible for the doctor to be implanted patient rejection of treatment .. In order to escape responsibility .. If the patient had not seen the results of his rejection.
2 - The second opinion believes that the principle of infallibility of the body is only relatively. And therefore does not evaluate this opinion weight of the will of the person, if they contradict with the preservation of his life .. The infallibility of the body aims to protect and protect the human .. Must be exercised in order to preserve it. The relative right to integrity of the body must cease before the absolute duty of every person to preserve his or her life, as long as the necessary means are available or available.
3 - The third opinion is no more than a compromise between the two former views, if the person consciously aware, his will must be respected, but if he is unconscious or non - people, and refused to undergo treatment, is not rejected, and prepare treatment against his will. But this view has been criticized by jurists; either our right to the integrity of our bodies is absolute, or it is not.
4. Some of the jurists are influenced by the notion of abuse of the right in the face of those who refuse treatment.
Is it really conceivable that we should abuse our right to infallibility?
The right of the patient to refuse treatment must stop in the interest of the community in preventing the spread of infection. It is not permissible for a patient with tuberculosis (open tuberculosis) to refrain from taking the treatment of tuberculosis, and leaves the patient spread the infection among people.
If we turn a blind eye to the harm done to the patient as a result of his or her abuse, society can not be left prey to the abuse of a person by deciding to refrain from treatment.
1 - There are those who believe that the will of the person comes in the first place, it has sovereignty and dominance, regardless of the results that can lead to it. And then gave the owners of this view the adult who shows the reality of his illness to refuse treatment, even if this situation leads to death !. It is not permissible - in this opinion - to force the patient, and the rejection of his refusal, and the imposition of treatment. In the face of the patient's refusal, the doctor must refrain from interfering because the use of force or violence is prohibited. From the moment that the advice goes beyond coercion, it violates one of the basic principles of the law. This, of course, if the patient has seen the results of rejection .. It is not permissible for the doctor to be implanted patient rejection of treatment .. In order to escape responsibility .. If the patient had not seen the results of his rejection.
2 - The second opinion believes that the principle of infallibility of the body is only relatively. And therefore does not evaluate this opinion weight of the will of the person, if they contradict with the preservation of his life .. The infallibility of the body aims to protect and protect the human .. Must be exercised in order to preserve it. The relative right to integrity of the body must cease before the absolute duty of every person to preserve his or her life, as long as the necessary means are available or available.
3 - The third opinion is no more than a compromise between the two former views, if the person consciously aware, his will must be respected, but if he is unconscious or non - people, and refused to undergo treatment, is not rejected, and prepare treatment against his will. But this view has been criticized by jurists; either our right to the integrity of our bodies is absolute, or it is not.
4. Some of the jurists are influenced by the notion of abuse of the right in the face of those who refuse treatment.
Is it really conceivable that we should abuse our right to infallibility?
The right of the patient to refuse treatment must stop in the interest of the community in preventing the spread of infection. It is not permissible for a patient with tuberculosis (open tuberculosis) to refrain from taking the treatment of tuberculosis, and leaves the patient spread the infection among people.
If we turn a blind eye to the harm done to the patient as a result of his or her abuse, society can not be left prey to the abuse of a person by deciding to refrain from treatment.
Labels
Medical Surgery