Why clinicians should provide lifesaving treatment after attempted suicide despite patient refusal

Historically, EMTs and clinicians intervened to resuscitate patients and provide lifesaving treatment following a suicide attempt. Despite this, the literature describes a range of cases following an attempted suicide where some physicians and ethicists assert that clinicians should not resuscitate the patient or provide lifesaving interventions, and instead allow the patient to die. Building upon a recent clinical ethics consultation case, this article provides a taxonomy of cases in the literature of patients who refuse lifesaving treatment following a suicide attempt. Often, these cases occur rapidly in emergency settings, offering little time for deliberation or discussion. While adults with decision-making capacity do have a right to refuse lifesaving treatment, this right does not extend to patients whose capacity is compromised or absent. This article outlines key legal points to guide clinician actions, including considerations for capacity assessments, duties under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the doctrine of presumed consent, and emergency psychiatric hold laws. Integrating legal duties along with ethical principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, and beneficence, this article provides a model recommendation to guide future cases.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Ethics
Published
2025-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509251397862
Primary Topic
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why clinicians should provide lifesaving treatment after attempted suicide despite patient refusal

Katherine Drabiak
Clinical Ethics
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
article

Why clinicians should provide lifesaving treatment after attempted suicide despite patient refusal

Katherine Drabiak
article en

Abstract

Historically, EMTs and clinicians intervened to resuscitate patients and provide lifesaving treatment following a suicide attempt. Despite this, the literature describes a range of cases following an attempted suicide where some physicians and ethicists assert that clinicians should not resuscitate the patient or provide lifesaving interventions, and instead allow the patient to die. Building upon a recent clinical ethics consultation case, this article provides a taxonomy of cases in the literature of patients who refuse lifesaving treatment following a suicide attempt. Often, these cases occur rapidly in emergency settings, offering little time for deliberation or discussion. While adults with decision-making capacity do have a right to refuse lifesaving treatment, this right does not extend to patients whose capacity is compromised or absent. This article outlines key legal points to guide clinician actions, including considerations for capacity assessments, duties under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the doctrine of presumed consent, and emergency psychiatric hold laws. Integrating legal duties along with ethical principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, and beneficence, this article provides a model recommendation to guide future cases.

Clinical Ethics
University of South Florida (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.