ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2025
Third-Party Consent To Medical Treatment in Malaysia: A Critical Analysis from Ethical and Malaysian Legal Perspectives.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Third-party consent, while common in medical practice, presents complex ethical dimensions and intricate legal connotations. In Malaysia, the absence of comprehensive legislation governing third-party consent for adults lacking decision-making capacity due to temporary conditions creates profound dilemmas for healthcare professionals. This article critically examines these challenges through a compelling case study of an 18-year-old female with respiratory failure who required immediate invasive intervention but did not receive consent from her mother. Despite medical urgings and a favourable prognosis, the mother's refusal highlights the difficulties healthcare providers face when navigating between their ethical obligations to act in the patient's best interests and the patient's family's wishes. Employing a dual analysis from ethical and Malaysian legal perspectives, the study explores the tensions between universal medical ethics-particularly the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence-and the existing Malaysian legal framework. It reveals contradictions between the Malaysian Medical Council's guidelines, which appear to grant decision-making authority to family members, and English common law principles that emphasise acting in the patient's best interests, especially in emergency situations. This inconsistency generates significant uncertainty for healthcare professionals, potentially compromising patient care and exposing physicians to litigation when acting without explicit consent. Through systematic examination of both emergency and non-emergency scenarios, the article underscores the urgent need for comprehensive legislation in Malaysia to address third-party consent, particularly for patients not covered by the Mental Health Act 2001. It advocates for laws that clearly differentiate between emergency and non-emergency situations, delineate the authority of relatives and legal guardians, and align with international practices and fundamental medical ethics principles. By harmonising legal statutes with ethical imperatives, Malaysia can resolve the contradictions that currently jeopardise patient welfare and physician security. These findings have important implications for healthcare policy development and clinical practice, emphasising the necessity for ethical and legal coherence in medical care in Malaysia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40638036What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.