You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 29, 2011

Living Wills and the Right to Refuse Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Every day, you control your health and finances. You decide whether to go to the doctor when you become ill or are injured. You also decide whether to purchase, sell, or gift your assets. In case of severe sickness or injury or death, the law must take over to best carry out your wishes.

In our July 15 column we discussed the importance of drawing up your will. Today we will discuss living wills and the right to refuse medical treatment.

For the first time in Thailand, the right to refuse medical treatment is expressly provided under Thai law. The Ministerial Regulation prescribing the rules and procedures for living wills took effect on May 20. The Ministerial Notification was issued under Section 12 of the National Health Act of 2007, which endows a person with the right to make a living will.

Before we define a living will, it is important to note certain characteristics and limitations of the instrument.

First, a living will should not be confused with a last will and testament, which provides for the distribution of an estate or assets. A living will has nothing to do with property.

Second, a living will does not allow euthanasia or mercy killing. Medical practitioners are not authorized to cause the death of their patients by performing an affirmative act, such as a lethal injection. Moreover, doctors retain the duty to relieve pain and perform other aspects of palliative care. The National Health Act of 2007 and the Ministerial Regulation relieve a healthcare provider of criminal and other liability only where the provider acts in accordance with the law, the regulation and the particular living will.

Third, a living will under Section 12 of the National Health Act does not include a medical or healthcare power of attorney, by which an individual may appoint an agent or proxy to make decisions regarding his or her health care and medical treatment in specified circumstances. Instead, the living will is a legal document through which a person may inform medical care providers, friends, and family members of his or her medical wishes, in the event that he or she is unable to communicate these wishes due to a serious illness or injury.

Meaning of a living will

A living will is also referred to as an advance directive, healthcare directive, or physician’s directive. It allows a person to make two choices in advance and in writing to (1) refuse health treatments provided merely to prolong his or her “terminal stage of life” or (2) refuse health treatments so as to cause the person to cease physical or psychological suffering caused by injury or incurable disease.

The “terminal or final stage of life” is specifically defined in the Ministerial Regulation, but can be understood by laypersons to include conditions caused by injury or incurable disease that lead to imminent death or that result in the permanent loss of brain function, which renders the person unable to communicate or comatose.

Living will requirements

A living will may be made by any person age 18 or older (referred to as a “declarant”) and should contain the following components:

  • The declarant’s full name, age, Thai identification number, and address or contact number.
  • The date the living will was made.
  • The full name and Thai identification number of the witness(es) and the relationship of such person(s) with the declarant.
  • The type of health care that the declarant does not wish to receive.
  • The full name and Thai identification number of the writer or typist (if the letter is written by another person).
  • The signature (or thumbprint, if necessary) of the declarant, witness(es), and writer or typist.

The National Health Commission Office of Thailand provides guidelines on the types of treatments that may be refused in a living will, including resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, nutritional and hydration assistance, and dialysis. If a patient is pregnant, her wishes will be followed after the birth of her child.

The intent of the declarant

Before performing under a living will, doctors must verify the patient’s intent. Per the Ministerial Regulation, such intent may be confirmed by the patient or, in the event that this is not possible, by witnesses or the patient’s relatives. As such, it is important for patients to tell their relatives and loved ones about their living will and their wishes for medical treatment.

In sum, patients are now entitled to have their living will enforced and to refuse health services that would prolong their terminal stage of life or to refuse health services in order to end their suffering. Thai law now gives patients the freedom to choose and the freedom to refuse medical treatment during the most critical time of their life.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
Read More
April 4, 2024
On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].
Read More