Physician withdrawal in the face of patient refusal of care in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a comparative medico-legal and ethical analysis
Abstract
Refusal of care constitutes a major medico-legal issue in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), creating tension between the principle of patient autonomy and the professional obligations of physicians, particularly the duty to provide assistance and continuity of care. This study aims to analyze the legal and ethical conditions under which a physician may withdraw from a case of refusal of care in the DRC. It examines the Constitution, the Penal Code, and the Congolese Code of Medical Ethics, drawing on a comparative approach with the medical codes of ethics of France, Belgium, Côte d'Ivoire, and Senegal, and supplementing this with an understanding of ethical principles in Anglo-Saxon contexts, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Based on a documentary analysis of normative texts and scientific literature, it emerges that Congolese law implicitly recognizes refusal of care and the physician's right to withdraw, but within a fragmented and insufficiently codified framework. The study highlights the value of legislative reform aimed at formalizing the refusal of care, securing medical withdrawal, and strengthening continuity of care, drawing on international standards and the medical ethics codes of European and African countries studied in comparative law. (Constitution of the DRC, 2006; Ordinance 70-158, 1970; Penal Code of the DRC, 1940; French High Council for Public Health [HCSP], 2014).Refusal of care
References
Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F., 2019. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed. New York : Oxford University Press.
Belgian Medical Council (Conseil de l’Ordre des médecins, Belgique), 2020. Code de déontologie des médecins. Conseil de l’Ordre des médecins, Bruxelles.
British Medical Association, 2016. Consent and confidentiality : a guide for doctors. British Medical Association, London.
Code de déontologie médicale, Côte d’Ivoire. Ordre des médecins de Côte d’Ivoire.
Code de déontologie médicale, Sénégal. Ordre des médecins du Sénégal.
Code de la santé publique, France, 2011 (article L.1111 4). Légifrance. Disponible : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr [consulté 31.03.2026].
Code pénal, République Démocratique du Congo, 1940. Articles 66 ter et 66 quater.
Constitution de la République Démocratique du Congo, 2006. Constitution de la RDC.
Conseil national de l’Ordre des médecins, France, 2018. Code de déontologie médicale. Conseil national de l’Ordre des médecins, Paris.
Droit congolais, 2023. Droit public et droit de la santé en RDC. Droitcongolais.info. Disponible : https://www.droitcongolais.info [consulté 31.03.2026].
Haut Conseil de la santé publique [HCSP], 2014. Oppositions et refus de soins. Haut Conseil de la santé publique, Paris.
Institut des politiques publiques [IPP], 2023. Les refus de soins en Europe. Institut des politiques publiques, Paris.
Kaufman, Z., 2017. Bad Samaritan law : Democratic Republic of the Congo, Penal Code Articles 66 ter and 66 quater. Disponible : https://www.zacharykaufman.com [consulté 31.03.2026].
Ordonnance n°70 158 portant Code de déontologie médicale, République Démocratique du Congo, 30 avril 1970. Journal officiel de la RDC.
Pan African Medical Journal, 2021. Les raisons du refus et abandon de soins aux urgences en Afrique subsaharienne. Pan African Medical Journal, 38(291).
Refus de soins du patient en Afrique de l’Ouest, 2025. Étude qualitative sur le refus de soins en Afrique de l’Ouest. Revue de médecine et de santé en Afrique, vol. 12.
World Health Organization [WHO], 2012. Patient safety and informed consent. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the IJO Journal will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.
