Court rules that withdrawal of life support is a plan of treatment requiring consent

• Published in: Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ) 2011-05, Vol.183 (8), p.E467-E467
• Main Authors: Cooper, Andrew B, Chidwick, Paula, Sibbald, Robert
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Court decisions; Health care policy; Humans; Informed consent; Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence; Intensive Care Units - legislation & jurisprudence; Laws, regulations and rules; Life support systems; Ontario; Physicians; Rasouli, Hassan; Withholding Treatment - legislation & jurisprudence
• ISSN: 0820-3946; 1488-2329
• DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3855

Dr. Brian Cuthbertson and Dr. Gordon Rubenfeld had sought to withdraw the life-sustaining equipment, place [Hassan Rasouli] on palliative therapy and transfer him to another facility. But Rasouli's spouse, Parichehr Salasel, a physician in Iran until the family emigrated to Canada in April 2010, objected, primarily on the grounds that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment violated a tenet of the Shia Muslim faith that health care treatment should be provided until there are no signs of life. Justice Susan Himel rejected the arguments of the physicians that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment constituted a medical decision within their purview and that they were under no obligation to continue providing treatment because it would be of no benefit and would fall "outside the standard of care" (http://thaddeuspope .com /images /Rasouli v._Sunnybrook Ont . 2011_.pdf). "If the respondents' interpretation of the HCCA [Health Care Consent Act] is accepted, no consistent rules regarding the withdrawal of life support in Ontario would exist. Whether or not substitute decision makers would be given an opportunity to consent would depend on the doctor in question, with recourse only being had to the CCB [Consent and Capacity Board]at the doctor's discretion."