Dimitrios Maharis
7215916
PHIL 235: Biomedical Ethics
Section EC
The Case of Scott Starson
Since 1985, physics prodigy Scott Starson had been in and out of psychiatric facilities
suffering from bipolar disorder and/or schizophrenia. In January 1999 however, Starson was
detained at a mental institution in Toronto after he was found not criminally responsible by
reason of mental illness for uttering death threats. When physicians proposed a treatment for his
mental illness, he refused to consent. Even though his physicians ensured him that taking this
medication would ameliorate his behaviour in society, he still refused. This led the HCP’s trusted
with his care and the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board to deem him incompetent, meaning he
lacked the ability to understand and respond to the medical situation presented before him.1
Informed consent is an important concept in the field of medicine, but if a patient is
incompetent and cannot fully appreciate the risks and benefits of treatment or refusal of
treatment, then they are only hurting themselves. Despite what the HCP’s thought was best for
Starson, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and the decision was reversed,
which means Starson did not get treatment and resides in a mental institution. According to his
mother, this was “the end of his life” as it was ruined following this decision.
Autonomy, which is defined in this course as the rational, mentally mature individual’s
right to make decisions regarding his or her own life, obligates health care providers to allow
patients to make decisions regarding their own medical care. In this case, it is important to
consider the patients views because, according to autonomy, he is in the best position to
determine what is best for his wellbeing according to his values. Starson states that taking the
drugs would ruin his ability to engage his passion of scientific research, a fate he calls “worse
1 Biomedical Ethics, Medical Descision-Making, p.23
7215916
PHIL 235: Biomedical Ethics
Section EC
The Case of Scott Starson
Since 1985, physics prodigy Scott Starson had been in and out of psychiatric facilities
suffering from bipolar disorder and/or schizophrenia. In January 1999 however, Starson was
detained at a mental institution in Toronto after he was found not criminally responsible by
reason of mental illness for uttering death threats. When physicians proposed a treatment for his
mental illness, he refused to consent. Even though his physicians ensured him that taking this
medication would ameliorate his behaviour in society, he still refused. This led the HCP’s trusted
with his care and the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board to deem him incompetent, meaning he
lacked the ability to understand and respond to the medical situation presented before him.1
Informed consent is an important concept in the field of medicine, but if a patient is
incompetent and cannot fully appreciate the risks and benefits of treatment or refusal of
treatment, then they are only hurting themselves. Despite what the HCP’s thought was best for
Starson, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and the decision was reversed,
which means Starson did not get treatment and resides in a mental institution. According to his
mother, this was “the end of his life” as it was ruined following this decision.
Autonomy, which is defined in this course as the rational, mentally mature individual’s
right to make decisions regarding his or her own life, obligates health care providers to allow
patients to make decisions regarding their own medical care. In this case, it is important to
consider the patients views because, according to autonomy, he is in the best position to
determine what is best for his wellbeing according to his values. Starson states that taking the
drugs would ruin his ability to engage his passion of scientific research, a fate he calls “worse
1 Biomedical Ethics, Medical Descision-Making, p.23
