{"id":{"repo_id":"toronto-retro","oai_identifier":"oai:utoronto.scholaris.ca:1807/80306"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/toronto-retro/oai:utoronto.scholaris.ca:1807/80306","repository":{"repo_id":"toronto-retro","name":"University of Toronto","base_url":"https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Future of Medical Futility in Ontario","abstract":"Medical futility is a topic plagued by controversy. The medico-legal community has long debated the definition of medical futility and whether the concept, however defined, can be used by physicians to justify withholding or withdrawing treatment. In Ontario, the present dominance of patient autonomy in healthcare ethics suggests medical futility has no place in treatment decision-making. In Cuthbertson v Rasouli, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether physicians have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw futile treatment from an incapacitated person. The Court concluded that consent must be obtained to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from Mr Rasouli, but in other situations physicians may have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw treatment. The Supreme Court's confused and convoluted findings suggest that reform of Ontario's Health Care Consent Act is necessary to recognize medical futilty in a manner that is clear, meaningful and considerate of the views of both patients and physicians.","abstract_html":"Medical futility is a topic plagued by controversy. The medico-legal community has long debated the definition of medical futility and whether the concept, however defined, can be used by physicians to justify withholding or withdrawing treatment. In Ontario, the present dominance of patient autonomy in healthcare ethics suggests medical futility has no place in treatment decision-making. In Cuthbertson v Rasouli, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether physicians have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw futile treatment from an incapacitated person. The Court concluded that consent must be obtained to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from Mr Rasouli, but in other situations physicians may have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw treatment. The Supreme Court's confused and convoluted findings suggest that reform of Ontario's Health Care Consent Act is necessary to recognize medical futilty in a manner that is clear, meaningful and considerate of the views of both patients and physicians.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Deans, Catherine"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"Law","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Flood, Colleen M"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2014,"date_issued":"2014-11","date_published":"2014-11","updated_at":"2026-07-27T21:27:58Z","subjects":["Ethics","Health Care Consent Act","Incapacitated patients","Medical futility","Personal autonomy","Rasouli"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1807/80306","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Flood, Colleen M"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Law"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Deans, Catherine"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2014-11"]},{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2017-11-27T18:00:13Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2017-11-27T18:00:13Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2014-11"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Ethics","Health Care Consent Act","Incapacitated patients","Medical futility","Personal autonomy","Rasouli"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1807/80306"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Medical futility is a topic plagued by controversy. The medico-legal community has long debated the definition of medical futility and whether the concept, however defined, can be used by physicians to justify withholding or withdrawing treatment. In Ontario, the present dominance of patient autonomy in healthcare ethics suggests medical futility has no place in treatment decision-making. In Cuthbertson v Rasouli, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether physicians have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw futile treatment from an incapacitated person. The Court concluded that consent must be obtained to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from Mr Rasouli, but in other situations physicians may have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw treatment. The Supreme Court's confused and convoluted findings suggest that reform of Ontario's Health Care Consent Act is necessary to recognize medical futilty in a manner that is clear, meaningful and considerate of the views of both patients and physicians."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["LL.M."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Future of Medical Futility in Ontario"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Flood, Colleen M"],"dc:contributor.department":["Law"],"dc:creator":["Deans, Catherine"],"dc:date":["2014-11"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2017-11-27T18:00:13Z"],"dc:date.available":["2017-11-27T18:00:13Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2014-11"],"dc:description.abstract":["Medical futility is a topic plagued by controversy. The medico-legal community has long debated the definition of medical futility and whether the concept, however defined, can be used by physicians to justify withholding or withdrawing treatment. In Ontario, the present dominance of patient autonomy in healthcare ethics suggests medical futility has no place in treatment decision-making. In Cuthbertson v Rasouli, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether physicians have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw futile treatment from an incapacitated person. The Court concluded that consent must be obtained to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from Mr Rasouli, but in other situations physicians may have unilateral authority to withhold or withdraw treatment. The Supreme Court's confused and convoluted findings suggest that reform of Ontario's Health Care Consent Act is necessary to recognize medical futilty in a manner that is clear, meaningful and considerate of the views of both patients and physicians."],"dc:description.degree":["LL.M."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1807/80306"],"dc:subject":["Ethics","Health Care Consent Act","Incapacitated patients","Medical futility","Personal autonomy","Rasouli"],"dc:title":["The Future of Medical Futility in Ontario"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T21:27:58Z"}