The future of decision-making in critical care after Cuthbertson v. Rasouli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".