The technology so prevalent in the modern healthcare setting often creates an illusion that the biological certainty of death can somehow be evaded. Increasing number of deaths worldwide occurs in hospitals, and doctors by necessity inherit the role traditionally owned by priests, in overseeing the dying process. Unrealistic expectations concerning cure or indeed different perceptions of patient's interests on a background of deficient communication can lead to conflict. The case of David James illustrates conflict arising in the context of critical illness where further life-sustaining interventions were deemed to be futile. Futility and conflict in context of critical illness are discussed along with the legal judgements pertaining to the case of David James.
Keywords: Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions; Ethical issues; communication; end of life.