Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary resuscitation order : does a person have a right to consent?

Abstract

In this research, the question asked was whether there is a right to consent to the imposition of a Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Order, from a human rights perspective. Pronouncements of the European Court of Human Rights were examined to answer the research question. The pronouncements chosen related to the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment and whether patients and/or relatives have the right to consent to the imposition of treatment. Several fundamental concepts emerged from this research. The concept of parental responsibility over a minor was explored and whether parental consent can be overridden due to the best interest of the child principle. The wishes of the incompetent patient and their importance was also discussed. State responsibility and the positive obligations which States have to safeguard human rights was also observed. Common findings which emerged from the analysis conducted include the fact that parental rights and consent may be overridden if their decision is not found to be in the minor patient’s best interest. Another common finding was that no violation of human rights was found when the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment was done by duly following domestic regulations. The conclusion drawn from this research was that there is no absolute right to consent to the imposition of a decision in relation to life sustaining treatment. No violations of human rights were in fact found to this effect by the Courts