This morning, the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba is being asked to decide on the fate of an elderly man who has been on life support since late October. The man's family believes that to remove the tubes would violate his religious beliefs, which say that you are not to hasten death. The doctors, however, have said that there is nothing more that they can do for him, that he is essentially brain dead, and that it is unethical to continue this treatment given the circumstances.
Personally, I find it fascinating that the doctors believe that they should dictate this man's treatment. I am not aware of any jurisdiction where the doctor would have the final say over the wishes of the patient, or in the event of the patient's incapacity, the patient's agent under a Personal Directive or Living Will or a publicly-appointed decision-maker. In Manitoba, while they do not have "Personal Directives", as we call them in Alberta, it is my understanding that they do have other pieces of legislation which allow an individual to appoint a person or persons to make health care decisions on their behalf when they are incapacitated. In the event that an individual is already incapacitated, a "committee", usually comprised of one or more family members, can be appointed by the court to make those decisions.
This case serves as another reminder as to why it is important to have a Personal Directive or Living Will. As it stands, this man has no substitute decision-maker and, therefore, it has created this gap that the doctors want to fill. No one disputes that a doctor's advice should be taken into consideration in these situations, but no one should have to worry that a doctor, not their family, can ultimately decide their fate, regardless of their beliefs. I hope the Court sees it that way too.
Comments