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​ 

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More