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​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More