title: TRACEY AND RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY: WILL THE PROMISE BE DELIVERED?
abstract: The central issue of the Court of Appeal decision in R (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 822 concerned whether competent adults should be involved in the decision-making process for Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. These are sensitive decisions made on the basis that cardio-pulmonary resuscitation would be futile, or that efforts to resuscitate would not be in the best clinical interests of the person concerned. The Court held that patient involvement in DNACPR decisions should be the presumption, even if clinicians sincerely believed that resuscitation would be futile, unless that involvement would cause actual psychological or physical harm. This case commentary explores the potential implications of this decision in the context of contemporary healthcare.
authors.affiliation: Leicester De Montfort Law School, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK jsamanta@dmu.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Jo
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Samanta
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010358:Patient Participation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D028701:Patient Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016414:Resuscitation Orders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006113:United Kingdom; D028761:Withholding Treatment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*
keywords: DNACPR; DNAR; Decision-making; Life-sustaining treatment; Resuscitation; Withholding treatment