this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
708 points (98.6% liked)

JustGuysBeingDudes

871 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"If we give someone benzos..."

Exactly! That would not be described as voluntary intoxication for this example, you as the hospital are responsible for his state.

If a person came in via the ambulance because they are in the midst of an episode of alcohol poisoning and are non-verbal, do you wait to take action until they can consent? You see what I'm saying?

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, but let's say that same person came in with a report of vomiting blood, suggesting esophageal varacies which are common in alcoholics due to hepatic portal hypertension but their hematocrit is stable. The next course of action would be to perform an upper endoscopy to see if those varacies are treatable before they really pop and the person bleeds out. That procedure would require informed consent, since it's not emergent even if it is a direct threat to their survival.

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, that makes sense. This all tracking with my examples and I'm pretty sure we agree here! Is this person awake or not? Is informed consent required when delayed treatment would be dangerous if the person came in in an alerted state, comatose, etc.? Being voluntarily intoxicated to the point of being a danger to your own life gets your consent ignored in many cases because most of the time society won't allow a person to just die.

I think I take your point about consent being not just sex in that context, but the medical version doesn't really apply here.