ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how legal regulations are brought into play when nine Norwegian clinical ethics committees deliberate a paper case about withholding life-prolonging treatment, that is, whether to opt for a 'do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) code'. The belief that informed consent is required to make a DNAR decision even when treatment is regarded as futile, may have the potential to push clinicians to perform futile treatment or to overcharge the patient with information about possible futile treatments. However, the deliberations indicate that clinical ethics committees' deliberations do not necessarily succumb to legal regulations when these are perceived as very unreasonable by experienced clinicians. Clinical ethics consultation services ought to seek legal advice when in doubt about the legal regulations and when the perceived legal constraints seem unreasonable. In the way clinical ethics committees and other consultation services may contribute to the interdisciplinary dialogue needed to evaluate health law.
