Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that St Paul’s Hospital has the right to take a man off life support despite his family’s wishes.
Sixty-five-year-old Leo Edward Bikus was put on life support after going into cardiac arrest three months ago.
His daughters said they have seen some signs of recovery, but the hospital has been told that they can discontinue treatment.
Bikus was left without a pulse for about 46 minutes, according to the documents filed in court. Following a number of clinical and investigational procedures, his family was informed that Bikus would be unlikely to regain independent neurological function.
His daughters questioned that assessment and filed a notice of civil claim on June 2, seeking an order that would require staff at St. Paul’s Hospital to continue life-sustaining treatments and allow for a three-week extension so they could obtain an independent review.
However, according to the documents, the family never obtained that independent review.
The family said they saw Bikus move his feet or other limbs, on occasion, but doctors at St. Paul’s said they believed these movements to be reflexive and not conscious.
As a result, Hon. Justice Christopher Hinkson ruled, “The acting medical staff of Providence Health Care Society are at liberty to transition Leo Edward Bikus to a comfort care treatment plan and may discontinue any life-sustaining treatment or health care services which, in their opinion, are not in his best interests within 24 hours of this order.”
Dr. Michael Curry, clinical associate professor with the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of British Columbia, said this case is a “tragic situation” for all involved.
“But in this case, it’s consistent with case law that when a person is in a situation from which there is no meaningful chance of recovery occurs, it’s no longer appropriate to provide care that’s actually very invasive,” he told Global News.
“If the person’s able to perceive pain, it would be very uncomfortable and at the end of the day, it’s going to be a futile exercise. And this case is part of a long chain of legal cases that establish this precedent.”
Currey said families facing these difficult decisions should have discussions about what the best course of action should be and family members should be honest and frank about what those decisions are.
“I think the first thing is to talk to your family and let them know your wishes and make sure it’s a decision that they’re aware that you’ve made,” he added.
“There’s also paperwork available from the government of B.C., which is a standardized form, and people are encouraged to perhaps leave that on their fridge in case a medical emergency does happen.
“It’s easily accessible for the family or for paramedics. And then also you can go through your family doctor or other health care providers to put a record on your medical file that’s available provincially.”
Comments