Law & Governance, 17(10) September 2016
Healthcare Ethics
Legal Developments in End-of-Life Issues
Abstract
[This article was originally published in Healthcare Quarterly, 17(2)]
Canadians have craved certainty as to the process to be followed when intervention is demanded that physicians are not prepared to offer or to continue to offer, even if it prolongs life, because it is considered to be otherwise non-beneficial. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), in its October 2013 judgment in Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, provided a narrow answer based on only Ontario's statutory regime and a specific set of facts. Or did it? The SCC's rationale, as well as decisions emanating from Ontario's unique Consent and Capacity Board, can arguably be relied on anywhere in Canada to defeat efforts to mandate the provision of interventions considered to be of no medical benefit and that cause harm.
This article is for subscribers only.
To view the entire article, sign in if you are a subscriber. Or select one of the options below.
Personal Subscriber? Sign In
Please note: To register for an event you must sign-in as an individual or create a personal Longwood's account. Thank you.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this!
You must sign in to comment Sign In or Create an Account to add comments
Related Content
Healthcare Quarterly
Response to a Serious Flood: The St Joseph’s Healthcare Experience
Nursing Leadership
Book Review: Nursing Leadership from the Outside In
Healthcare Policy
Opportunities to Enhance Coding of Homelessness in Canadian Hospital Administrative Data





