FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W52060581> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W52060581 startingPage "23" @default.
• W52060581 abstract "Introduction End-of-life medical decision-making is complex and is further complicated by the uncertainty of whether physicians require patient consent to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment a physician deems inappropriate. In the recent decision of Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, (1) the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the state of the law in Ontario, holding that pursuant to the Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (2) (HCCA), patient consent is required for the withdrawal of life support regardless of whether the physician providing such treatment believes it is inappropriate or futile. (3) Chief Justice McLachlin, speaking for a majority of the Court in Rasouli, found that the HCCA solely governed the issue of whether patient consent was required for the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. (4) This article aims to elucidate the effect the decision in Rasouli will have in Alberta by comparing the HCA with relevant Alberta legislation, namely the Personal Directives Act (5) (PDA). The author concludes that, unlike the HCCA, the PDA is silent on the issue of whether patient consent is required for the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment that a physician deems to he inappropriate and as a result, in Alberta, one must look to the common law for the answer to this question. The decision in Rasouli will therefore only impact the law in Alberta in so far as it provides guidance as to the common law. Background End-of-life medical decision-making has been complicated by advances in life-sustaining treatment technology including mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition and hydration. Mechanical ventilators were originally developed for use during surgical operations and it was only in the 1960s that intravenous feeding and mechanical ventilators began to be widely used outside of operating and recovery rooms. (6) This expanded use of life support technology permits patients in minimally conscious or persistent vegetative states to be kept alive for extended periods of time. (7) One of the first legal issues that arose in response to the prolific use of life-sustaining treatment was whether a patient, or a representative of the patient, (8) could refuse to consent to such treatment or have such treatment withdrawn. The ability of a patient to refuse medical treatment has long been recognized as stemming from the tort of battery at common law. (9) However, as the common law did not recognize a right to appoint an agent to make medical decisions and the legal effect of a patient's written instructions in advance of their incompetency is uncertain under the common law, there was no clear mechanism for patients to exercise their right to refuse medical treatment once incompetent. (10) All Canadian provinces and territories, with the exception of Nunavut, have enacted legislation creating mechanisms for patients to control their own medical treatment in the event of incompetency. (11) Two types of mechanisms exist through which an individual can control their treatment. One option is for an individual to execute written instructions (a directive) that will govern their future treatment in the event they become unable to make such decisions. Another mechanism through which an individual may retain some control over their treatment is to appoint an agent (12) to make treatment decisions on the individual's behalf. Legislation that gives legal effect to advance directives and substitute decision-makers permits individuals to stipulate treatment they do not want, in advance of incompetency. Such legislation may, potentially permit individuals to demand that treatment is continued, particularly where the treatment at issue is life sustaining. Multiple cases have come before the courts where patients' agents or family members have requested the continuation of life-sustaining treatment despite the opposition of the treating physician. (13) The only of these cases to reach the Supreme Court of Canada was that of Rasouli. …" @default.
• W52060581 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W52060581 creator A5047304568 @default.
• W52060581 date "2013-06-22" @default.
• W52060581 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W52060581 title "The Impact (or Lack of Impact) of Cuthbertson V. Rasouli on End-of-Life Medical Decision Making in Alberta" @default.
• W52060581 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W52060581 type Work @default.
• W52060581 sameAs 52060581 @default.
• W52060581 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W52060581 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W52060581 hasAuthorship W52060581A5047304568 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C2777995714 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C68122502 @default.
• W52060581 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C139621336 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C142724271 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C15744967 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C160735492 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C170706310 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C17744445 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C199539241 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C204787440 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C2777351106 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C2777995714 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C2778272461 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C68122502 @default.
• W52060581 hasConceptScore W52060581C71924100 @default.
• W52060581 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W52060581 hasLocation W520605811 @default.
• W52060581 hasOpenAccess W52060581 @default.
• W52060581 hasPrimaryLocation W520605811 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W110891302 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W18986159 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2000172439 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2014148049 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2072911167 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2104536292 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2298240460 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2472082809 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2498880810 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2534306522 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2600623799 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2735716188 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2761211082 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W283144324 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2933577332 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W3122283832 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W318537881 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W77547115 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W194493606 @default.
• W52060581 hasRelatedWork W2658830018 @default.
• W52060581 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W52060581 isParatext "false" @default.
• W52060581 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W52060581 magId "52060581" @default.
• W52060581 workType "article" @default.