The patient who refuses medical treatment: a dilemma for hospitals and physicians

This article reviews recent case and statutory law concerning patients who refuse medical treatment. Among the special cases considered are: the competent adult patient who refuses treatment on religious or privacy grounds; the incompetent patient whose own wishes were never expressed, but whose family refuses treatment; the incompetent patient who expressed the wish not to be treated before becoming incompetent; and parents who refuse treatment on behalf of their child. It is pointed out that recent court decisions have blurred the distinctions between "extraordinary" care and "ordinary" care and between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Reference is made to the recent trend toward allowing the family of an incompetent patient to assert the patient's rights without court intervention either in the form of direct court order or through guardianship proceedings. Finally, the implications of these legal developments for health care institutions are discussed. A protocol pertaining to incompetent patients is proposed. Health care institutions are encouraged to develop formal policies for dealing with patients who refuse treatment, and to work with their professional associations in lobbying for legislation which will clarify the law in this area.     

Civil commitment of the mentally ill: an overview

This article discusses historical themes that led to the civil commitment reforms of the sixties and seventies. The changes in the substantive criteria for commitment are analyzed and critiqued. The author believes that the present criteria tend to focus so specifically on various external indicia of mental illness that they render commitment difficult for many seriously ill patients. An alternative commitment scheme is discussed.     

The impact of health maintenance organizations and competition on hospitals in Minneapolis/St. Paul

The Healthcare Educational and Research Foundation (HERF) in Minneapolis undertook a two-year research project to study the effects of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and competition on the hospital industry in Minneapolis/St. Paul. This article summarizes HERF's major findings surrounding three key questions: (1) do the HMOs in Minneapolis/St. Paul use fewer hospital resources relative to conventional payers?; (2) do recent overall community trends in inpatient use suggest evidence of hospital utilization-reducing effects attributable to HMOs?; and (3) given the highly visible competitive process among Minneapolis/St. Paul providers, do hospital cost and revenue data suggest any evidence of cost-containment? The findings (based on data through 1982) indicate that for comparable patients, Twin Cities HMOs appear to use fewer medical care resources per hospitalized patient. There was, however, no clear evidence of community-wide, utilization-reducing effects directly attributable to the "competitive effect" of HMO introduction and development in the market. In addition, there was no empirical evidence that HMOs (which had enrolled 25 percent of the consumer market by 1982), or other large buyers of inpatient services, have selected hospitals on the basis of price as hypothesized by competition advocates.     

Introduction to the Baby Jane Doe papers

A conference was held at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in October 1984 to discuss the controversy concerning treatment of a newborn with severe congenital defects that became known as the Baby Jane Doe case. Fox provides some background information on the case to introduce a set of of six articles consisting of papers delivered at the conference. These articles deal with historical aspects of the treatment debate (Stanley J. Reiser), problems of clinical decision making (John M. Freeman), the legal issues involved (John A. Robertson), coverage of the case by the media (Stephen Klaidman and Tom L. Beauchamp), federal efforts to regulate the treatment of handicapped newborns (Lawrence D. Brown), and the alliance that arose between opponents of abortion and advocates of the rights of the handicapped (Constance Paige and Elisa B. Karnofsky).