Int J Law Psychiatry. 2025 Nov 29;105:102179. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102179. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious metabo-psychiatric disorder. Despite a mortality rate approximately five times higher than that of age-matched controls, most deaths result from delayed recognition, fragmented care, and limited access to integrated, evidence-based treatment. Refusal of life-sustaining nutrition in severe or longstanding AN presents profound ethical and legal dilemmas, challenging the balance between autonomy, protection, and the duty to preserve life. This paper provides a critical narrative and normative review of how clinical uncertainty, systemic failure, and legal interpretation influence decision-making in treatment refusal. It examines capacity, futility, and best-interests determinations within mental health and capacity law in England and Wales, with comparative reference to other high-income countries. The review finds that unvalidated constructs such as “severe and enduring” and end-of-life framing of AN lack empirical and legal foundation. Their adoption risks normalising treatment withdrawal and assisted dying in a treatable psychiatric disorder that predominantly affects women. Ethical analysis grounded in autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice demonstrates that autonomy should be supported rather than presumed absolute when reasoning is impaired by malnutrition or psychopathology. The paper concludes that aligning clinical and legal practice with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would strengthen supported decision-making, safeguard the right to life, and promote parity between psychiatric and physical healthcare. A shift toward the prevention of avoidable deaths, rather than acceptance of inevitability, is urgently required.
PMID:41319454 | DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102179
