The future of decision-making in critical care after Cuthbertson v. Rasouli.

Purpose: The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling on Cuthbertson v. Rasouli has implications for all acute healthcare providers. This well-publicized case involved a disagreement between healthcare providers and a patient's family regarding the principles surrounding withdrawal of life support, which the physicians involved considered no longer of medical benefit and outside the standard of care, and whether consent was required for such withdrawals. Our objective in writing this article is to clarify the implications of this ruling on the care of critically ill patients.

Source: SCC ruling Cuthbertson v. Rasouli.

Principal Findings: The SCC ruled that consent must be obtained for all treatments that serve a "health-related purpose", including withdrawal of such treatments. The SCC did not fully consider what the standard of care should be. Health-related purpose is not sufficient in and of itself to mandate treatment, and clinicians must still ensure that their patients or decision-makers are aware of the possible medical benefits, risks, and expected outcomes of treatments. The provision of treatments that have no potential to provide medical benefit and carry only risks would still fall outside the standard of care. Nevertheless, due to their health-related purpose, physicians must seek consent for the discontinuation of these treatments.

Conclusion: The SCC ruled that due to the legal definition of "health-related purpose", which is distinct from medical benefit, consent is required to withdraw life-support and outlined the steps to be taken should conflict arise. The SCC decision did not directly address the role of medical standard of care in these situations. In order to ensure optimal decision-making and communication with patients and their families, it is critical for healthcare providers to have a clear understanding of the implications of this legal ruling on medical practice.