Cuthbertson v Rasouli

Last updated

Cuthbertson v Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53, [2013] 3 SCR 341 is a 2013 Canadian medical ethics case concerning whether a hospital may withdraw life-sustaining treatments perceived to be futile without the consent of the patient's representative. [1]

Hassan Rasouli was an Ontario man who underwent a minor brain surgery for a benign tumor in October 2010, and was rendered comatose by a bacterial meningitis infection a few days later. [2] [3] [4] His attending physicians, Dr. Brian Cuthbertson and Dr. Gordon Rubenfeld, felt that Rasouli's diagnosis of PVS offered effectively no chance of meaningful recovery, and planned to withdraw life support. Dr. Parichehr Salasel, Rasouli's wife and legal guardian, argued that end-of-life support should not be disconnected from her husband both for religious reasons and due to her belief that his condition was not as dire as the hospital stated, and obtained a court injunction to prevent the hospital from withdrawing support. [5]

Rasouli's condition showed slight improvement while the case was in progress, resulting in the hospital upgrading his diagnosis to "minimally conscious". [4]

The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in October 2013 in favour of Salasel, ruling that consent is required to withdraw treatment. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Life support</span> In medicine

Life support comprises the treatments and techniques performed in an emergency in order to support life after the failure of one or more vital organs. Healthcare providers and emergency medical technicians are generally certified to perform basic and advanced life support procedures; however, basic life support is sometimes provided at the scene of an emergency by family members or bystanders before emergency services arrive. In the case of cardiac injuries, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initiated by bystanders or family members 25% of the time. Basic life support techniques, such as performing CPR on a victim of cardiac arrest, can double or even triple that patient's chance of survival. Other types of basic life support include relief from choking, staunching of bleeding by direct compression and elevation above the heart, first aid, and the use of an automated external defibrillator.

Sue Rodriguez was a Canadian right-to-die activist. In August 1991, she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and was given two to five years to live. She ultimately made the decision to end her life and she sought the assistance of a doctor to that end, leading to a legal battle. She lost her case in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, but took her own life with the help of an anonymous doctor on February 12, 1994. She is cited as an important figure in the eventual legalization of medical assistance in dying in Canada.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a young adult incompetent. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, Cruzan was argued on December 6, 1989, and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.

Anthony David Bland was a supporter of Liverpool injured in the Hillsborough disaster. He suffered severe brain damage that left him in a persistent vegetative state as a consequence of which the hospital, with the support of his parents, applied for a court order allowing him to "die with dignity". As a result, he became the first patient in English legal history to be allowed to die by the courts through the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment including food and water for the injuries.

<i>Charkaoui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Charkaoui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of procedures for determining the reasonableness of a security certificate and for reviewing detention under a certificate. The Court held that the security certificate process, which prohibited the named individual from examining evidence used to issue the certificate, violated the right to liberty and habeas corpus under section 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter. The Court however rejected the appellant arguments that the extension of detentions violated the right against indefinite detention, that the differential treatment violated equality rights, and that the detention violated the rule of law. As remedy, the Court declared the "judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention" to be of no force and effect, striking down articles 33 and 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but suspended the ruling for one year.

Involuntary Euthanasia is currently illegal in all 50 states of the United States. Assisted suicide is legal in 10 jurisdictions in the US: Washington, D.C. and the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington. The status of assisted suicide is disputed in Montana, though currently authorized per the Montana Supreme Court's ruling in Baxter v. Montana that "nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes [indicates] that physician aid in dying is against public policy."

Therapeutic privilege refers to the decision of a healthcare practitioner to withhold information from a patient when there is a justified belief that disclosure may cause serious mental or physical harm to them. As of 2022, this defence is permissible in countries such as Australia, Canada, England, Netherlands and Wales as an exception to the standard consent process. Despite this, there are very limited cases in which therapeutic privilege has been upheld. This is mainly due to the complex ethical and legal ramifications in withholding information from a patient and how to define someone as being at sufficient risk to fall into this category wherein therapeutic privilege should prevail. Another challenge in enacting therapeutic privilege is the consideration of other professionals involved in patient care, such as where there is a multidisciplinary care team. However, in withholding information, there is also a denial of patient autonomy

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of euthanasia</span>

The legality of euthanasia varies depending on the country. Efforts to change government policies on euthanasia of humans in the 20th and 21st centuries have met limited success in Western countries. Human euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety of NGOs, most notably medical associations and advocacy organizations. As of 2023, euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and all six states of Australia. Euthanasia was briefly legal in the Northern Territory between 1996 and 1997, but was overturned by a federal law. In 2021, a Peruvian court allowed euthanasia for a single person, Ana Estrada.

Child euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that is applied to children who are gravely ill or have significant birth defects. In 2005, the Netherlands became the first country since the end of Nazi Germany to decriminalize euthanasia for infants with hopeless prognosis and intractable pain. Nine years later, Belgium amended its 2002 Euthanasia Act to extend the rights of euthanasia to minors. Like euthanasia, there is world-wide public controversy and ethical debate over the moral, philosophical and religious issues of child euthanasia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Euthanasia in Canada</span> Legal history of euthanasia in Canada

Euthanasia in Canada in its legal voluntary form is called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) and it first became legal along with assisted suicide in June 2016 for those whose death was reasonably foreseeable. In March 2021, the law was further amended by Bill C-7 which to include those suffering from a grievous and irremediable condition whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. According to the Fourth Annual Report on MAID, there were 13,241 MAID deaths reported in Canada in 2022.

<i>Starson v Swayze</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Starson v Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722 was an important case at the Supreme Court of Canada that considered the legal requirements for determining if a person is capable of making decisions regarding their medical treatment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aruna Shanbaug case</span> Indian legal case regarding euthanasia

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, was an Indian nurse who was at the centre of attention in a court case on euthanasia after spending over 41 years in a vegetative state as a result of sexual assault.

Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital, 1 A.3d 823 (2010), is a New Jersey legal case concerning whether a hospital may unilaterally refuse care to a patient on the grounds that it is futile to prolong the person's life because there is little chance that the condition will improve. It has become the focal point of the ongoing debate surrounding denial of care among professional bioethicists.

The law on Euthanasia in India distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia.

<i>Canada (AG) v Bedford</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 SCR 1101 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Canadian law of sex work. The applicants, Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, argued that Canada's prostitution laws were unconstitutional. The Criminal Code included a number of provisions, such as outlawing public communication for the purposes of prostitution, operating a bawdy house or living off of the avails of prostitution, even though prostitution itself is legal.

The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so. It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the mature minor rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15.

The Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) is an Ontario law concerned with the capacity to consent to treatment and admission to care facilities.. As of 2 August 2023 on a date to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the act will also apply to confining in a care facility.

A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a limited period of time. The scope and reach of biological patents vary among jurisdictions, and may include biological technology and products, genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The applicability of patents to substances and processes wholly or partially natural in origin is a subject of debate.

<i>Carter v Canada (AG)</i> Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by several parties, including the family of Kay Carter, a woman suffering from degenerative spinal stenosis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS"). In a unanimous decision on February 6, 2015, the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code, thereby giving Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor's assistance in dying. This ruling overturned the Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), which had denied a right to assisted suicide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charlie Gard case</span> 2017 UK best interests legal case

The Charlie Gard case was a best interests case in 2017 involving Charles Matthew William "Charlie" Gard, an infant boy from London, born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), a rare genetic disorder that causes progressive brain damage and muscle failure. MDDS has no treatment and usually causes death in infancy. The case became controversial because the medical team and parents disagreed about whether experimental treatment was in the best interests of the child.

References

  1. "SCC 34362" (PDF). eol.law.dal.ca. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 8, 2016. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  2. "Cuthbertson et al. v Hassan Rasouli - End-of-Life Law and Policy in Canada". dal.ca. Archived from the original on April 8, 2016.
  3. "SCC Case Information - Summary - 34362". scc-csc.ca. Supreme Court of Canada. January 1, 2001. Archived from the original on June 20, 2018.
  4. 1 2 "Five things to know about the Supreme Court ruling on keeping critically ill patient Hassan Rasouli alive". nationalpost.com. October 18, 2013. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  5. "A life or death decision". hospitalnews.com. November 1, 2013. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  6. Hawryluck, L.; Baker, A. J.; Faith, A.; Singh, J. M. (August 28, 2014). "The future of decision-making in critical care after Cuthbertson v. Rasouli". Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia. 61 (10): 951–958. doi:10.1007/s12630-014-0215-9. PMID   25164242. S2CID   26054871 . Retrieved December 20, 2022.