Code of Medical Ethics to be amended. There is a proposal

The proposal prepared by the NRL's KEL Committee to amend Art.7. reads:

In particularly justified cases, a doctor may not undertake or abandon treatment of a patient, except in cases of danger of loss of life, serious bodily injury or serious disorder of health. When not undertaking or withdrawing from treatment, the doctor must indicate to the patient another possibility of obtaining medical assistance, and inform the patient of the urgency of taking advantage of this possibility.

• In contrast, the current Art.7. reads:

In particularly justified cases, the doctor may not undertake or refrain from treating the patient, except in urgent cases. In not undertaking or withdrawing from treatment, the doctor should indicate to the patient another possibility of obtaining medical assistance.

The most important ethical imperative of a physician is the maxim: Salus aegroti suprema lex esto. From this ethical duty of the doctor derives the obligation to treat the sick and help them to the best of his professional competence and not to leave them without the best available care. It also derives from it the duty to minimize harm to the patient expressed in the principle: primum non nocere.

In certain situations, a doctor may not undertake care of a patient or dispense with treatment, provided that the patient is not in a state of danger of loss of life, grievous bodily harm or serious disorder. Situations in which a doctor is allowed to not take care of a patient can be divided into two types.

First of all, a doctor may not be competent to undertake treatment of a certain type. In such a case, he not only has the right but even the duty not to undertake the treatment and to ask a competent person to help and take over the patient's care, if such a person is available. While waiting for the help of a more competent person, he should provide assistance to the patient within the scope of his competence. Such conduct is dictated by the absolute duty to minimize harm to the patient.

Secondly, a doctor may not undertake treatment due to conscientious objection, as long as the failure to undertake treatment does not result in a danger of loss of life, grievous bodily harm or grave bodily disorder. A doctor in a relationship of subordination is obliged to inform his superior of the existence of such a conflict of conscience, who is obliged to provide appropriate assistance to the patient.

Source: NIL