The problems arise when physicians have to decide whether to override the decisions of patients in order to help them or prevent harm to them. Some health care professionals will accept a patient's refusal as valid, whereas others are inclined to ignore the fact that an informed consent to treatment has not been given, and try to help the patient through a medical intervention. In a hospital, or other medical setting, informed consent means that a patient has understood all the ramifications of a particular medical procedure and has agreed to have the physician proceed. Historically, the idea of informed consent arose from a desire to protect patients and research subjects from poor medicine and science and to allow ample room for self determination. From the legal point of view, a physician has a duty both to inform patients and to obtain their consent before performing any medical procedure.
Moral rights are far more difficult to define.
Because these rights can be subjective, courts and society have a difficult time determing what, if any entitlements, are valid, and whether to base decisions on some interpretation of law or by virtue of conscience, reason, justice, or other moral faculty. By law, minors are presumed incapable of giving informed consent. Physicians are empowered to make such decisions and to proceed to act in what they consider to be in the best interest of their patients. Patients are entitled to reasonably informed participation in decisions involving their health care. This should be based on a clear explanation of their condition and of all proposed technical procedures.