Arkansas law supposedly gives competent adults the right to refuse medical treatment—even treatment that doctors believe could save their lives. Supposedly, if a patient refuses treatment, a physician must obtain legal authority before overriding that decision.

That sounds reassuring on paper.

My son’s experience was different.

According to our allegations and the records produced in litigation, Sean Lynn was restrained, heavily sedated, and billed more than $100,000 by UAMS despite his refusal of treatment.

When Sean attempted to pursue civil remedies, the response was not an examination of whether his rights had been violated. Instead, defendants sought dismissal based on technical objections to the summons. Ironically, I located a UAMS collection case using the same summons language defendants claimed was defective in Sean’s case. In another recently filed UAMS case, the summons language differed substantially from the Arkansas Supreme Court’s approved form.

Readers can draw their own conclusions.

What I have learned is that rights written in statutes and rights enforced in practice are not always the same thing. A right that can be ignored without consequence is not much of a right at all.

Criminal prosecutions of state-employed physicians appear to be extraordinarily rare. Civil claims face procedural hurdles that often prevent courts from ever reaching the merits. Meanwhile, the bills continue to arrive.

If you have had a similar experience and would like to share your story, contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.