Unproven Medical Treatment Cannot Be Demanded by a Patient as a Matter of Right, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that patients do not have a constitutional or legal right to demand an unproven medical treatment, even if they express consent, where there is no adequate scientific basis or reliable information to justify the therapy. This principle was articulated in a case concerning the use of stem cell therapy as a treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), in which the court addressed broader questions about experimental medical interventions and the limits of patient autonomy. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, observed that treatments lacking established scientific support and not recognised as accepted clinical practice cannot be demanded by patients as a matter of right, particularly where adequate information about the treatment’s nature, benefits, risks and alternatives is unavailable to enable truly informed consent.

The court’s reasoning drew on established jurisprudence emphasising that valid medical consent must be predicated on “adequate information” about a proposed treatment, including its purpose, potential benefits, possible risks, alternatives and the consequences of refusal. Citing earlier Supreme Court authority, the bench reiterated that this requirement is fundamental to ensuring that a patient’s decision reflects a balanced and informed judgment rather than a therapeutic misconception about the efficacy or safety of an intervention. In the context of stem cell therapy for ASD, the court found that the current state of scientific knowledge did not provide sufficient evidence to classify the treatment as a sound or standard clinical practice, and that patients or their caregivers could not be assumed to possess adequate factual or scientific information about its outcomes.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court held that the mere expression of a desire to undergo an unproven treatment cannot, by itself, create a legal entitlement to that treatment. The bench noted that patient autonomy, while an important principle, has limits where the underlying intervention does not meet accepted standards of medical evidence and practice, and where consent cannot be considered fully informed due to lack of reliable information. The court emphasised that allowing patients to demand such unproven therapies as a matter of right could expose them to significant risks, undermine established standards of care, and encourage clinics or practitioners to offer experimental or speculative treatments outside regulated research settings.

The judgment also highlighted the ethical dimension of medical practice, emphasising that offering unproven treatments outside monitored clinical trials constitutes a breach of recognised medical standards and, in some instances, may amount to malpractice. In upholding the requirement that treatments must either be evidence-based or administered within the structure of approved and supervised clinical research, the court underscored the responsibility of medical professionals and regulatory authorities to protect patients from harm and to ensure that clinical practice remains anchored in sound scientific knowledge.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that patients cannot demand unproven treatments—such as experimental therapies lacking robust clinical backing—as a legal right, and that consent to such interventions is not valid unless it is based on adequate, accurate and comprehensive information. This principle reinforces the importance of evidence-based medical practice and the need for clear regulatory frameworks governing the use of new or experimental treatments, ensuring that patient welfare and safety remain paramount in healthcare decision-making.