The no-duty-to treat principle, which states that health professionals are not obligated to provide care or to practice, has been a contentious issue in the United States (US). Though medical professionals can refuse to offer care, consent (both express and implied) from their licensure, professional codes and oaths, reciprocity, and special training require them to attend to their patients regardless of their concerns ( Malm et al., 2008) . However, the concept of no-duty-to treat should not be considered as a conditional regulation for medical experts as it is an essentially ethical and legal provision to secure their personal safety and beliefs or when there is poor patient-physician relationship.
No-duty-to treat is essential to protect medical professionals’ moral beliefs and safety concerns. Occasionally, physicians may be required to offer services that contradict such as their moral and/or religious beliefs, in which case they are allowed to refuse to offer care such as when a patient needs abortion services to which a healthcare provider does not ascribe to for personal beliefs. In such a case, one is entitled to evoke the no-duty to treat principle. However, laws and vertically integrated care have altered this provision making it difficult for practitioners to exercise their no-duty-to treat provision ( Rosenbaum, 2003) . Similarly, practitioners can refuse to offer care if their safety is jeopardized such as in caring for highly infectious diseases such as Ebola without proper training or equipment. Thus, the no-duty-to treat principle is essential for ethical reasons as it enables health providers to secure their moral convictions and secure their safety.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, the no-duty-to treat principle is essential as it enables physicians to express their freedom in the pluralistic society. According to Parsi (2007), the American Medical Association (AMA) allows health practitioners to refuse to offer care if they exercise their moral or professional convictions at work. Moreover, practitioners are not expected to offer unquestionable care to patients as long as they do not discriminate them as per Title VI of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Rosenbaum, 2003). Thus, healthcare providers can choose to refuse to offer care if they are not discriminative for personal or professional reasons.
References
Malm, H., May, T., Francis, L. P., Omer, S. B., Salmon, D. A., & Hood, R. (2008). Ethics, pandemics, and the duty to treat. The American Journal of Bioethics , 8 (8), 4-19.
Parsi, K. (2007). Duty to treat: conscience and pluralism. AMA Journal of Ethics , 9 (5), 362-364.
Rosenbaum, S. (2003). The impact of United States law on medicine as a profession. JAMA , 289 (12), 1546-1556.
