BackgroundImplantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) implantation has significantly modified the natural history of patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in various types of heart diseases. However there is a high rate of psychological distress and reduced quality of life in patients with an ICD, more evident in younger individuals. The ICD removal upon patient request is a very rare event and causes many clinical and ethical issues.MethodsThe article discusses the case of a young patient affected by hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, who underwent implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation as a primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Two years after the implantation, the patient repeatedly requested removal of the ICD due to of a significant and untreatable psychological device intolerance.ResultsIntervention became possible only after extensive psychological evaluation, which excluded specific pathology, and the ratification of Italian law 219/2017 on informed consent and advance directives, which guarantees the patient's independent decisions on current and future medical treatment. The explantation was performed 7 years after the implant. The patient is alive and in good health.ConclusionsThe paper debates the issues related to establishing a patient–physician relationship based on respect for the patient's autonomy and experience of illness, in reference to principles such as beneficence and non‐maleficence, and the conflicts that sometimes arise between them.If a paternalistic approach in the patient–physician relationship evolves into a patient‐centered model, it is more certain that the patient's choice is realistically known and shared, and that it is consistent with the patient's values and life goals.The shared decision making (SDM) process and the use of pathology‐specific decision aids are able to transform the informed consent tool, usually related to medical‐legal issues, into an aid for true partnership between the patient and the medical care team.