Rasouli - Going Where Betancourt Refused to Go

An editorial in the Globe & Mail rightly praises the Supreme Court of Canada, calling it "right" when it agreed to hear the case of Hassan Rasouli, despite shifting medical facts.  The case stands in stark contrast to Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital in which the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court declined to provide the same sort of guidance when changing facts in that case similarly made it moot.




The Editorial notes that the court "is expected to provide much-needed guidance on end-of-life treatment.   The issue - who decides - has been a divisive, emotional one. Giving doctors unilateral decision-making power seems extreme, yet it is equally perverse for families of incapable patients to insist upon costly interventions of no medical benefit and some potential harm. The absence of direction has left a policy vacuum, and potentially treatment vacuums in Canadian hospitals. Will physicians hesitate to start trials of therapy in critically ill patients if they think they cannot withdraw them when later deemed futile?"