Responses

Download PDFPDF
Paper
Rethinking paternalism: an exploration of responses to the Israel Patient's Rights Act 1996
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Conflicts for Jewish patients and physicians

    The article by Waltho (1) raises some issues of concern for Jewish patients, and physicians, outside of Israel Canada is a country with a significant mix of races and religions. To the observant Jewish population, the issue of "informed refusal" presents a conflict between what is required of physicians and what religion dictates. My own experience when working in a hospital functioning on strictly observant rules did n...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    That "Non-maleficence is not a novel concern" is precisely why it should be discussed more widely

    Many thanks to Adam J Sher for drawing my (and others') attention to this particular aspect of the IPRA's genesis. Notwithstanding that it renders my own contribution to such debates even more modest than I had at first suspected, to discover that my thoughts echoed (however belatedly!) those of such a respected individual as Rabbi Feinstein is somewhat edifying, and I would hope that most people would rather find their v...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Non-maleficence is not a novel consideration

    Simon Waltho is right to note that his analysis does not offer anything particularly new to this debate. Gross was not the only author to highlight the harm that the actual act of forcing a patient to receive treatment against his express wishes might cause. Before the State of Israel introduced the Israeli Patient's Rights Act in 1996, the issue of whether one could force life-saving treatment on a patient had already b...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.