PURPOSE: The goals of this qualitative study were to review the last 7 years of end of life legal decisions within the critical care field to explore how medical benefit is defined and by whom and the role of the standard of care (SoC) in conflict resolution. METHODS: A public online, non-profit database of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada was searched for relevant Consent and Capacity Board decisions from 2003 to 2012. In total, 1486 cases were collected, and purposive sampling identified a total of 29 decisions regarding use of life-sustaining treatments at end of life. Using modified grounded theory, decisions were read and analyzed from a central SoC concept to understand definitions of benefit, rationales for case adjudication, and repercussions of legal recourse in conflict resolution. RESULTS: Medical benefit was clearly defined, and its role in determining SoC, transparent. Perceptions of variability in SoC were enhanced by physicians in intractable conflicts seeking legal validation by framing SoC issues as "best interest" determinations. The results reveal some key problems in recourse to the Consent and Capacity Board for clinicians, patients and substitute decision makers in such conflict situations. CONCLUSIONS: This study can help improve decision-making by debunking myth of variability in determinations of medical benefit and the standards of care at end of life and reveal the pitfalls of legal recourse in resolving intractable conflicts.
PURPOSE: The goals of this qualitative study were to review the last 7 years of end of life legal decisions within the critical care field to explore how medical benefit is defined and by whom and the role of the standard of care (SoC) in conflict resolution. METHODS: A public online, non-profit database of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada was searched for relevant Consent and Capacity Board decisions from 2003 to 2012. In total, 1486 cases were collected, and purposive sampling identified a total of 29 decisions regarding use of life-sustaining treatments at end of life. Using modified grounded theory, decisions were read and analyzed from a central SoC concept to understand definitions of benefit, rationales for case adjudication, and repercussions of legal recourse in conflict resolution. RESULTS: Medical benefit was clearly defined, and its role in determining SoC, transparent. Perceptions of variability in SoC were enhanced by physicians in intractable conflicts seeking legal validation by framing SoC issues as "best interest" determinations. The results reveal some key problems in recourse to the Consent and Capacity Board for clinicians, patients and substitute decision makers in such conflict situations. CONCLUSIONS: This study can help improve decision-making by debunking myth of variability in determinations of medical benefit and the standards of care at end of life and reveal the pitfalls of legal recourse in resolving intractable conflicts.