A conflict between the family of a nursing-home resident and the facility follows a full legal trajectory of its own in Georgia: the resident is a patient, and the Georgian Law on Patient Rights protects them completely. The typical contested zones of the dispute are consent to treatment and its termination, the challenge of a representative's decision, emergency care, and finally the court claims — from compensation of damage to licence consequences. Understanding which article governs which step is what turns an emotional clash into an arguable legal case.
Consent to Treatment and Its Termination
An essential condition of the delivery of medical services is the informed consent of the patient — or, where the patient is unable to take a conscious decision, of a relative or legal representative; this consent precedes the service (Article 22). A capable patient who can take conscious decisions, in turn, receives full freedom under Article 23: they may refuse medical services at any stage of treatment or discontinue a service already begun, provided they are exhaustively informed of the expected consequences of the refusal or discontinuation. Carrying out a service against the will of a capable patient is prohibited, except in cases established by Georgian legislation. In nursing-home practice this means that when the family says one thing and the facility another, neither voice decides if the resident themselves is capable — the decision is theirs alone. The facility's task is not to override but to document: the information given, the capacity assessment and the resident's expressed will.
The Representative Regime and Emergencies
Where the patient lacks decision-making capacity, Article 23's neighbour, Article 25, governs three situations. If the decision of a relative or legal representative contradicts the patient's health interests, the provider has the right to challenge that decision in court. If the patient needs emergency care — without which death or a significant deterioration of health is inevitable — but a relative or representative cannot be found, the provider takes the decision with regard to the patient's health interests. And where emergency care is indispensable to prevent death but the relative or representative opposes it, the provider again decides in accordance with those interests. Knowing this regime spares the family unnecessary conflict: the law assigns precise roles to both sides. Alongside capacity, informedness is decisive: the patient and the family are entitled to complete, objective, timely and understandable information about the factors affecting health (Article 16) — a right that grounds every subsequent decision in the facility.