Supreme Court Of Canada Clarifies Ontario Procedure For Withdrawing Life Support

In a recent landmark decision, relating broadly to the area of Elder Law, the Supreme Court of Canada held that two Ontario physicians could not unilaterally withdraw life support for a patient who they believe is in a persistent vegetative state with no realistic hope for recovery. You should note, however, that because the case involved Ontario legislation, the decision is most narrowly applicable to Ontario. In fact, the Court went out of its way to state that this case does not resolve the debate over whether a next-of-kin's decision should trump a physician's interest in not being forced to provide non-beneficial medical treatment. Nevertheless, the reasoning and discussion reveals that the majority of the Court is clearly inclined to give families greater control over life-ending medical decisions, which could potentially have an impact on cases dealing with the tension between physicians and families when their loved ones are on life support.

Cuthbertson v. Rasouli , 2013 SCC 53 concerned a patient who developed an infection that caused severe brain damage following a surgery to remove a benign brain tumour. As a result, the patient has been unconscious since October 2010. The appellant physicians argued that: (1) life support that is not "medically indicated" is not "treatment" under the Ontario legislation; (2) in any case, the withdrawal of treatment does not itself constitute "treatment" under the Ontario legislation; and (3) requiring consent for the withdrawal of life support will place them in an untenable ethical position.

The majority of the Court rejected these arguments. The Court held that "treatment" was broadly defined under the Ontario legislation and should not be confined to procedures that are of medical benefit in the view of the patient's physicians. Similarly, the Court held that the definition of "treatment" was broad enough to...