IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v8y2018i4p117-d184468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individualism and the Decision to Withdraw Life Support

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Chartrand

    (School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada)

Abstract

The 1996 Health Care Consent Act of Ontario (Canada) is a law that regulates medical decision making. Therefore, it also gives indications on how end of life decisions should be made. The goal of the law was to ensure and protect patient’s autonomy and avoid medical paternalism, especially at the end of life. Throughout this article, I would like to argue that one of the consequences of the 1996 Health Care Consent Act of Ontario is to promote individualism. Therefore, this law makes it improbable to attain a shared decision model. More specifically, the way the 1996 Health Care Consent Act is currently written, a proxy is assigned as a decision-maker for someone who is deemed incompetent. However, it also ensures that the proxy will be the only one with the burden of that decision. This argument will be supported by providing a qualitative description of three cases that I have encountered during my six-month fieldwork in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a hospital located in Ontario. This paper offers a reflection upon the consequences of using an alternative decision maker (proxy) to withdraw life support.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Chartrand, 2018. "Individualism and the Decision to Withdraw Life Support," Societies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:117-:d:184468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/4/117/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/4/117/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:117-:d:184468. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.