Source recordOfficial public recordverified1990sBlood doctrine

Source record · Official public record

Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales, “Re T (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649; [1993] Fam 95”

30 July 1992pp. [1992] 4 All ER 649 at 652-653Source ID src-ewca-1992-re-tAccessed 19 September 2026
Official public record Verified

Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales, “Re T (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649; [1993] Fam 95”

30 July 1992 · pp.[1992] 4 All ER 649 at 652-653 · Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR, Butler-Sloss and Staughton LJJ · All England Law Reports (PDF reproduced by the Global Health & Human Rights Database)

“An adult patient who, like Miss T, suffers from no mental incapacity has an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment, to refuse it or to choose one rather than another of the treatments being offered.”

'This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent.' T (mother 'a fervent Jehovah's Witness') signed a refusal before a caesarean; the Court held 'there was no valid refusal of consent' and that the doctors were 'justified … by the principle of necessity'. 'Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.'

Provenance and verification note for Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales, Re T (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649; [1993] Fam 95

Confidence note. Opened the full law report (19 pp.); wording and disposition confirmed. BAILII blocked by a bot challenge.

Scan provenance. PDF of the All ER report hosted by globalhealthrights.org

Corroborated by. src-dlj-2007-ziebart

Notes. The court treated the refusal as ineffective; the patient survived.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-ewca-1992-re-t