脆弱性和平等的问题:在高风险的临终决定对医生的信托义务的法院评估的新需要。

Health law in Canada Pub Date : 2017-05-01
Laura Hawryluck
{"title":"脆弱性和平等的问题:在高风险的临终决定对医生的信托义务的法院评估的新需要。","authors":"Laura Hawryluck","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>At the heart of high stakes end of life (EOL) decisions such as withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments (WLST) or medical assistance in dying (MAiD), are concerns that vulnerable people in our society need to be legally protected from prematurely ending their own lives or from having their lives inappropriately ended by healthcare teams predisposed to negatively assess their quality of life. Recently, two Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Rasouli and Carter (MAiD) have clearly emphasized the role of consent in providing legal protections to people at the end of life. The role of the medical standard of care is less clear: though the Supreme Court in Rasouli was careful to state there had been no ruling on the medical standard of care with respect to WLST, the Court did state that standard of care considerations would be important in such decisions. In contrast to Rasouli, the result of the Carter ruling was that consent alone is insufficient protection for physician assisted death without a medical standard of care. Subsequently, in its new legislation, the Canadian Government restricted access to MAiD on the grounds that some people - those who lose capacity, with mental illnesses and mature minors - are so vulnerable that this potential choice at the EOL must be denied. In simple terms, for some, consent and the medical standard of care are insufficient protections. Such claims and their consequences are a sign of an emerging and significant problem: the reduction of medicine to a mere contractual relationship while disregarding its fiduciary nature simply because the courts have, in the words of Chief Justice McLachlin, \"never reviewed physicians' good faith treatment decisions on the basis of fiduciary duty\". The goals of this article are to explore issues of vulnerability and equality, the existing protections in both medicine and law and the emerging need for courts to evaluate physicians' fiduciary duties in high stakes EOL decisions in order to resolve conflicts with respect to WLST, to ensure access to MAiD and to promote the future aualitv of EOL care for all Canadians.</p>","PeriodicalId":79609,"journal":{"name":"Health law in Canada","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Issues of Vulnerability and Equality: The Emerging Need for Court Evaluations of Physicians' Fiduciary Duties in High Stakes End-of-Life Decisions.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Hawryluck\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>At the heart of high stakes end of life (EOL) decisions such as withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments (WLST) or medical assistance in dying (MAiD), are concerns that vulnerable people in our society need to be legally protected from prematurely ending their own lives or from having their lives inappropriately ended by healthcare teams predisposed to negatively assess their quality of life. Recently, two Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Rasouli and Carter (MAiD) have clearly emphasized the role of consent in providing legal protections to people at the end of life. The role of the medical standard of care is less clear: though the Supreme Court in Rasouli was careful to state there had been no ruling on the medical standard of care with respect to WLST, the Court did state that standard of care considerations would be important in such decisions. In contrast to Rasouli, the result of the Carter ruling was that consent alone is insufficient protection for physician assisted death without a medical standard of care. Subsequently, in its new legislation, the Canadian Government restricted access to MAiD on the grounds that some people - those who lose capacity, with mental illnesses and mature minors - are so vulnerable that this potential choice at the EOL must be denied. In simple terms, for some, consent and the medical standard of care are insufficient protections. Such claims and their consequences are a sign of an emerging and significant problem: the reduction of medicine to a mere contractual relationship while disregarding its fiduciary nature simply because the courts have, in the words of Chief Justice McLachlin, \\\"never reviewed physicians' good faith treatment decisions on the basis of fiduciary duty\\\". The goals of this article are to explore issues of vulnerability and equality, the existing protections in both medicine and law and the emerging need for courts to evaluate physicians' fiduciary duties in high stakes EOL decisions in order to resolve conflicts with respect to WLST, to ensure access to MAiD and to promote the future aualitv of EOL care for all Canadians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health law in Canada\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health law in Canada\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health law in Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在高风险的生命终结(EOL)决定的核心,如撤销维持生命治疗(WLST)或临终医疗援助(MAiD),是我们社会中的弱势群体需要得到法律保护,以免过早结束自己的生命,或让他们的生命被倾向于负面评估他们生活质量的医疗团队不恰当地结束。最近,加拿大最高法院在Rasouli和Carter (MAiD)一案中的两项裁决明确强调了同意在为生命结束的人提供法律保护方面的作用。医疗护理标准的作用则不太明确:尽管Rasouli案最高法院谨慎地指出,没有就WLST的医疗护理标准作出裁决,但法院确实指出,在此类决定中,护理标准的考虑将是重要的。与Rasouli的判决相反,卡特判决的结果是,仅凭同意不足以保护医生在没有医疗标准的情况下协助死亡。随后,加拿大政府在其新立法中限制使用MAiD,理由是有些人——那些丧失行为能力的人、患有精神疾病的人和成年未成年人——是如此脆弱,必须拒绝这种在EOL的潜在选择。简单地说,对一些人来说,同意和医疗标准是不够的保护。这类索赔及其后果是一个正在出现的重大问题的标志:将医疗简化为一种纯粹的合同关系,而忽视其信托性质,仅仅是因为法院,用首席大法官McLachlin的话来说,“从未审查医生基于信托义务的善意治疗决定”。本文的目的是探讨脆弱性和平等问题,医学和法律上的现有保护措施,以及法院评估医生在高风险EOL决策中的信托义务的新需求,以解决与WLST相关的冲突,确保获得MAiD并促进所有加拿大人未来的EOL护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Issues of Vulnerability and Equality: The Emerging Need for Court Evaluations of Physicians' Fiduciary Duties in High Stakes End-of-Life Decisions.

At the heart of high stakes end of life (EOL) decisions such as withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments (WLST) or medical assistance in dying (MAiD), are concerns that vulnerable people in our society need to be legally protected from prematurely ending their own lives or from having their lives inappropriately ended by healthcare teams predisposed to negatively assess their quality of life. Recently, two Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Rasouli and Carter (MAiD) have clearly emphasized the role of consent in providing legal protections to people at the end of life. The role of the medical standard of care is less clear: though the Supreme Court in Rasouli was careful to state there had been no ruling on the medical standard of care with respect to WLST, the Court did state that standard of care considerations would be important in such decisions. In contrast to Rasouli, the result of the Carter ruling was that consent alone is insufficient protection for physician assisted death without a medical standard of care. Subsequently, in its new legislation, the Canadian Government restricted access to MAiD on the grounds that some people - those who lose capacity, with mental illnesses and mature minors - are so vulnerable that this potential choice at the EOL must be denied. In simple terms, for some, consent and the medical standard of care are insufficient protections. Such claims and their consequences are a sign of an emerging and significant problem: the reduction of medicine to a mere contractual relationship while disregarding its fiduciary nature simply because the courts have, in the words of Chief Justice McLachlin, "never reviewed physicians' good faith treatment decisions on the basis of fiduciary duty". The goals of this article are to explore issues of vulnerability and equality, the existing protections in both medicine and law and the emerging need for courts to evaluate physicians' fiduciary duties in high stakes EOL decisions in order to resolve conflicts with respect to WLST, to ensure access to MAiD and to promote the future aualitv of EOL care for all Canadians.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信