Medical Murder is now called Inappropriate Conduct (my headline)
Directives from Supreme Court must be enforced.
This article was published
by Advocate
Daily on March 31, 2015.
Hugh Scher
|
Many Canadians do not
recognize the full extent to which existing rules around end-of-life
decision-making are not serving as appropriate barriers to inappropriate conduct,
says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.
“This makes it all the more unlikely that new rules are going to stop the conduct,” says Scher,
Concerning cases around end-of-life care decisions continue to crop up across Canada, says Scher, noting it is unclear whether directives from prior court rulings are being respected and enforced.
In one recent case, a Toronto physician and hospital were sued by a family who alleged a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order was unilaterally placed on an elderly patient at Toronto East General Hospital against their wishes, reports the Toronto Star.
The Star reports the statement of claim, which seeks $1.2 million in damages for four of Canh Luong’s family members, alleges Dr. Alvin Chang and Toronto East General committed “wrongful death, abuse of power, negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.”
The statement of claim, says the Star, alleges Chang was negligent in preferring “his own opinion over that of the plaintiffs with respect to the code status of Luong,” for failing to consult them before making the change, and for failing “to provide Luong with the necessaries of life.”
Scher, who is not involved in the Luong case but who has been involved in other such cases, says clear rules and meaningful consequences for those who go against the established guidelines are needed.
“This makes it all the more unlikely that new rules are going to stop the conduct,” says Scher,
Concerning cases around end-of-life care decisions continue to crop up across Canada, says Scher, noting it is unclear whether directives from prior court rulings are being respected and enforced.
In one recent case, a Toronto physician and hospital were sued by a family who alleged a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order was unilaterally placed on an elderly patient at Toronto East General Hospital against their wishes, reports the Toronto Star.
The Star reports the statement of claim, which seeks $1.2 million in damages for four of Canh Luong’s family members, alleges Dr. Alvin Chang and Toronto East General committed “wrongful death, abuse of power, negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.”
The statement of claim, says the Star, alleges Chang was negligent in preferring “his own opinion over that of the plaintiffs with respect to the code status of Luong,” for failing to consult them before making the change, and for failing “to provide Luong with the necessaries of life.”
Scher, who is not involved in the Luong case but who has been involved in other such cases, says clear rules and meaningful consequences for those who go against the established guidelines are needed.
“If we are not able
to stop the most basic abuses relative to DNR orders or end-of-life care
measures now, expanding those practices presents serious dangers,” says Scher. “The Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in
Rasouli that doctors should not be acting unilaterally with regard to the
withholding and withdrawal of treatment including end-of-life decision-making
measures and that consent to treatment or refusing treatment – particularly
where it forms part of an ongoing treatment plan – is required from the patient
or substitute decision-maker.”
Scher says, “Doctors who act
against that consent or without it are acting without lawful authority and in
my view, are running afoul of the law as established by the Supreme Court of
Canada.”
In
doctor-assisted suicide in specific cases. The court gave the federal
government 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling, with the
ban on doctor-assisted suicide standing until then.
The Carter decision risks creating a culture of permissiveness with regard to all end-of-life matters, says Scher, and real consequences are required for those that break or ignore the law. Without them, all Canadians are put at serious risk in health care settings across the country, Scher states.
HughScher 1-416-816-6115, hugh@sdlaw.ca
- See more at: http://www.advocatedaily.com/directives-from-supreme-court-must-be-respected-enforced.html#sthash.43fAjQuo.dpuf
THE CANADIAN PRESS
I have been trying to delete this post but like another time it won't.delete/edit. Computers are beyond me.
Directives from Supreme Court must be respected, enforced
THE CANADIAN PRESS
Many Canadians do not recognize the
full extent to which existing rules around end-of-life decision-making are not
serving as appropriate barriers to inappropriate conduct, says Toronto health
and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.
“This makes it all the more
unlikely that new rules are going to stop the conduct,” says Scher, who has
acted as counsel to The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in several high-profile
end-of-life files including Rasouli v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2011
ONCA 482 (CanLII); Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53, [2013] 3 S.C.R.
341; Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society, 2014
BCSC 165 (CanLII); Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society 2015
BCCA 91; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 886
(CanLII); Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 BCCA 435
(CanLII); and Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5.
Concerning cases around end-of-life
care decisions continue to crop up across Canada, says Scher, noting it is
unclear whether directives from prior court rulings are being respected and
enforced.
In one recent case, a Toronto
physician and hospital were sued by a family who alleged a “do not resuscitate”
(DNR) order was unilaterally placed on an elderly patient at Toronto East
General Hospital against their wishes, reports the Toronto Star.
The Star reports
the statement of claim, which seeks $1.2 million in damages for four of Canh
Luong’s family members, alleges Dr. Alvin Chang and Toronto East General
committed “wrongful death, abuse of power, negligence and breach of fiduciary
duties.”
The statement of claim, says
the Star, alleges Chang was negligent in preferring “his own
opinion over that of the plaintiffs with respect to the code status of Luong,”
for failing to consult them before making the change, and for failing “to
provide Luong with the necessaries of life.”
Scher, who is not involved in the Luong
case but who has been involved in other such cases, says clear rules and
meaningful consequences for those who go against the established guidelines are
needed.
“If we are not able to stop the
most basic abuses relative to DNR orders or end-of-life care measures now,
expanding those practices presents serious dangers,” says Scher. “The Supreme
Court of Canada made it clear in Rasouli that doctors should
not be acting unilaterally with regard to the withholding and withdrawal of
treatment including end-of-life decision-making measures and that consent to
treatment or refusing treatment – particularly where it forms part of an
ongoing treatment plan – is required from the patient or substitute
decision-maker.”
Scher says, “Doctors who act
against that consent or without it are acting without lawful authority and in
my view, are running afoul of the law as established by the Supreme Court of
Canada.”
In Carter, released
in February, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on doctor-assisted suicide
in specific cases. The court gave the federal government 12 months to craft
legislation to respond to the ruling, with the ban on doctor-assisted suicide
standing until then.
The Carter decision risks
creating a culture of permissiveness with regard to all end-of-life matters,
says Scher, and real consequences are required for those that break or ignore
the law. Without them, all Canadians are put at serious risk in health care
settings across the country, Scher states.
- See more at: http://www.advocatedaily.com/directives-from-supreme-court-must-be-respected-enforced.html#sthash.43fAjQuo.dpuf
I have been trying to delete this post but like another time it won't.delete/edit. Computers are beyond me.
.
.
