|
I'll try to track down the case studies for it, but I'm not sure about my journal access until semester starts again because I withdrew from my subjects last year... but -
In Australia, one of the foundation cases for informed consent with regards to the mentally ill was a man who had schizophrenia and who was also a diabetic. He ended up with gangrene (due to vascular insufficiency secondary to his diabetes) and was advised that his leg would need to be amputated, or he would end up dying of sepsis.
He refused surgery because one of the only joys that he had in life was dancing, and he decided that he would rather live a small number of months and still be able to dance than live the rest of a long life without his leg.
His doctors petitioned the courts to have them overthrow his decision, because he had a history of schizophrenia and (in their opinion) obviously wasn't making a healthy or sane decision... they argued that his decision making processes were impaired by his illness.
The courts decided that he was actually able to make his own choice when it came to what was happening, and that even though his doctors mightn't agree with what he'd decided, his rights to have agency over his own medical decisions should be upheld. They found that this man, who suffered with a mental illness, was able to make a decision - that not all his decisions were results of his mental illness.. even the ones that don't make sense to others.
|