Thaddeus Mason Pope

Bioethics, Health Law, Patient Rights

Home

Video Intro

Biography

Summary

CV

Awards & Honors

Social Media

Fulbright Chair

Hastings Center

Brocher Fdn

Photographs

Name Thaddeus

Other Bio

Contact

Expert Witness

Ethics Consults

Media

Media Appearances

Media Videos

Publications

Awards & Measures

by Date

Policy Statements

Right to Die Treatise

Series & Columns

by Topic

by Discipline

Research Agenda

COI Disclosures

Presentations

Upcoming Presentations

Past Presentations

Videos

Book Professor Pope

Disclosures

ICEL4

Service

Reg Comments

Public Policy

Academic Service

Editorships

Peer Review

Honors & Awards

University Service

Bar Service

Community Service

ASBH

Health Law Teaching

Research Papers

Externships

Reference Letters

My Own Teachers

Lawyer Prof. Resp.

Quality & Liability

Syllabi & Evaluations

Reading Packets & Slides

Exams & Feedback

Health Law Success

Career Guides

Writing Competitions

Moot Court Competitions

Health Law Institute

Learning Outcomes

Stay Current

Reference Materials

Torts Teaching

Syllabus & Evaluations

Torts PPT

Torts Exams

Decision Aids

PDA Articles

PDA Presentations

PDA Laws

PDA Reports

PDA Samples

Unwanted Treatment

Articles by Pope

Media Coverage

Court Cases

Regulatory Actions

Mandated Disclosures

Medical Futility

Futility Talks

Futility Blog

Futility Cases

Futility Statutes

Futility Policies

Archie Battersbee

Charlie Gard

Tinslee Lewis

Brain Death

Pope Articles BD

Pope Presentations BD

Pope Videos BD

Pope Consulting

Background

Statutes

Accommodation

Hospital Policies

Apnea Consent

Injunction Cases

Damages Cases

Misdiagnosis

Pregnancy

Organ Grab

Other Cases

Jahi McMath

Israel Stinson

Aden Hailu

Canadian Law

British Law

Surrogates

Pope Pubs

Bad Surrogates

Other

Unbefriended

Advance Directives

Pope Talks

Video Directives

Advance Care Planning

Advance Directives 1

Forged Advance Directives

Organ D&T

VSED

Pope Publications

Pope Presentations

VSED Book

Guidance & Policies

Medical Literature

Family Stories

Legal - VSED

Legal - SED by AD

VSED Directives

EOLWA AD

MAID

Pope Articles

Pope Presentation

Pope Expert

2024 U.S. MAID Bills

EOLO Statutes

Cases in Court

Attacks on Statutes

Worldwide MAID Laws

IVAE

CBO

HEC - CEC

Minnesota Law

Personal

Outdoor Life

Quotations

Art & Movies

Jerry Jazz

File Exchange

 
Medical Futility Resources
On the following six pages, I collect materials relating to medical futility, also known as non-beneficial treatment or potentially inappropriate treatment. 
  1. Futility Blog
  2. Futility Cases
  3. Futility Statutes
  4. Futility Policies
  5. Charlie Gard
  6. Tinslee Lewis

Introduction to Medical Futility Dispute Resolution
Families of patients in both U.S. and Canadian hospitals regularly ask clinicians to administer life-sustaining medical treatment for incapacitated, critically ill patients in situations where the treating clinicians judge such treatment as non-beneficial and inappropriately aggressive. These conflicts are widely referred to as “medical futility” disputes. A key question is whether and how clinicians can stop life-sustaining treatment (such as CPR, dialysis, mechanical ventilation, and nutrition & hydration) without family consent.

Medical futility conflicts are becoming more frequent and more litigious. For example, recent United Kingdom cases like Charlie Gard were litigated not only to the UK Supreme Court but also to the European Court of Human Rights. British families and clinicians continue to litigate these cases (see, e.g., Alfie Evans and Tafida Raqeeb). While the UK is still debating solutions, at least it takes a uniform and consistent approach. In contrast, U.S. jurisdictions are taking varying approaches. Some have enacted Simon’s Laws that prohibit withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment without consent. Other jurisdictions (like CA, TX, and VA) have enacted laws that specifically permit it.

The oldest and most well-known U.S. dispute resolution mechanism for medical futility disputes is the Texas Advance Directives Act. But TADA is under attack. First, the Texas state legislature has repeatedly amended and narrowed the law over the past few years. Second, litigants are challenging TADA’s very constitutionality. A case is now pending before the Supreme Court of Texas (Kelly v. Houston Methodist, No. 19-0390). It is unclear whether TADA will survive legislative and judicial attacks. But what is the right replacement? Policymakers are looking for a dispute resolution mechanism that acts quickly, yet still affords procedural due process.

For over a decade, I have closely followed the resolution of medical futility disputes in Canada. For example, in 2008, I was invited to lead a series of presentations and discussions in Winnipeg during the Samuel Golubchuk case. Since then, I have consulted with lawyers involved in other cases, including the Hassan Rasoui case as it headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. I have also regularly consulted with Canadian clinicians on projects such as the widely influential, international Official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units.

Canada has a model dispute resolution mechanism for the United States to follow: the Ontario Consent & Capacity Board. While the CCB was originally designed to handle other forms of cases, it has adjudicated dozens of medical futility disputes. There is no comparable tribunal in any United States jurisdiction. Over the past ten years, in both published articles and major presentations, I defend the CCB as a model dispute resolution mechanism for medical futility conflicts. I also recommend the CCB in articles in Toronto Life, Toronto Star, and Toronto Sun. More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada has also endorsed the CCB. Still, commentators continue to debate the competence and effectiveness of the CCB for medical futility disputes.