Running head: ANALYSIS OF RE T (ADULT: REFUSAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT)
Moses Nsofwa
Critical Analysis of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) CA
LS251
2024 Term B
Mr. Chisanga Mutale
10th December,2024
Critical Analysis of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) CA 2
Critical Analysis of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) CA
The case of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) is a significant
landmark in medical law, particularly concerning the autonomy of adult patients to
refuse medical treatment. This analysis aims to delve into the legal principles
established in this case and examine whether the decision would differ if it were made
under the Zambian legal framework, especially in light of the Constitution of Zambia
(Amendment) Act, 2016.
Background and Legal Principles in Re T
In Re T, the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom dealt with the refusal of a
blood transfusion by a patient, Miss T, who was under the influence of her mother's
religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. Despite initially consenting to the transfusion,
Miss T later refused it after discussing with her mother. The court had to decide whether
her refusal was valid, given the potential life-threatening consequences of not receiving
the transfusion.
The court upheld the principle that a competent adult has the right to refuse
medical treatment, even if it results in death. However, it invalidated Miss T's refusal
because it was influenced by her mother's beliefs rather than her own free will. This
case underscored the importance of patient autonomy, informed consent, and the
absence of undue influence in medical decisions.
Autonomy and Consent under Zambian Law
In Zambia, the 2016 Constitution emphasizes the protection of individual rights,
including the right to life (Article 15) and the right to privacy (Article 23), which
encompasses the right to make personal medical decisions. The Constitution also
guarantees freedom of conscience, belief, and religion (Article 19), ensuring that
individuals can make decisions based on their religious beliefs without undue
interference.
Comparison of Legal Frameworks
While both the UK and Zambia recognize the importance of autonomy and
consent in medical treatment, their legal frameworks and cultural contexts differ. In the
UK, the principle of patient autonomy is firmly established, and the Mental Capacity Act
2005 provides a clear framework for assessing capacity and ensuring informed consent.
In Zambia, the legal system may place greater emphasis on community and
family involvement in medical decisions. This cultural context, where collective decision-
making is often valued over individual autonomy, could influence the outcome of a case
like Re T. Nevertheless, the Zambian Constitution provides robust protections for
individual rights, which would support the principle of autonomy in medical decision-
making.
Critical Analysis of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) CA 3
Influence and Coercion in Medical Decisions
In Re T, the court found Miss T's refusal to be invalid due to external influence
from her mother. In Zambia, similar criteria for valid consent and assessing undue
influence would apply. The courts would examine the nature of the relationship between
the influencer and the patient, the circumstances under which the decision was made,
and the patient's vulnerability.
Religious Beliefs and Medical Ethics
Religious beliefs play a critical role in medical decisions, as highlighted in Re T.
Both the UK and Zambia strive to balance religious considerations with medical ethics
and patient rights. In Zambia, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and belief,
allowing individuals to make medical decisions based on their faith. However, the courts
must also ensure that these decisions do not result in harm or neglect of the patient's
health.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the decision in Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992)
CA underscores the importance of patient autonomy, informed consent, and the
absence of undue influence in medical decision-making. If this case were decided in
Zambia under the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, 2016, the outcome might
be similar, given the constitutional protections for individual rights and freedom of
religion. However, the Zambian cultural context, which values collective decision-
making, might influence the court's approach to assessing consent and undue influence.
Ultimately, both jurisdictions recognize the need to balance individual autonomy with the
broader ethical and legal considerations in medical law.
Critical Analysis of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) CA 4
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Emanuel, E. J., & Emanuel, L. L. (1992). Four Models of the Physician-Patient
Relationship. JAMA, 267(16), 2221-2226.
Silverman, J., Kurtz, S. M., & Draper, J. (2016). Skills for Communicating with Patients
(3rd ed.). CRC Press.
Rosenbaum, L. (2012). The Art of Doing Nothing. New England Journal of Medicine,
367, 288-290.
CASE LAW
Bland v. Airedale NHS Trust [1993] 1 All ER 821
STATUTES
The Health Professions Act No. 24 of 2009
Critical Analysis of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) CA 5
