Abstract

People who suffer from eating disorders often have to be treated against their will, perhaps by being detained, perhaps by being forced to eat. In this paper it is argued that whilst forcing compliance is generally acceptable, there may be circumstances under which a sufferer's refusal of consent to treatment should be respected. This argument will hinge upon whether someone in the grip of an eating disorder can actually make competent decisions about their quality of life. If so, then the decision to refuse therapy may be on a par with other decisions to refuse life‐prolonging therapy made by sufferers of debilitating chronic, or acute onset terminal illness. In such cases, palliation might justifiably replace aggressive therapy. The argument will also draw heavily on the distinction between competent refusal of therapy and passive euthanasia, and the distinction between incompetent and irrational decisions. Both distinctions will then be applied to decisions to refuse food. The extent to which sufferers from anorexia nervosa can be categorised as either incompetent or irrational will be examined. It is against this background that it will be argued that at least some of those who suffer from eating disorders should have their refusals respected, even if they may die as a result.