I'm sure you would if the operation could save their life. In any circumstance where the patient is denied a potentially life-saving treatment I can see the right to litigation arising.

I wasn't talking about saving a life. You don't operate just because the patient wants to. You wouldn't amputate a patient because they wanted to. You would if it would salvage the remainder of the limb and prevent complications and the patient wants to. Remember, for a patient to have treatment there must be three conditions (that I can think of): the patient consents to treatment, the doctor is happy to carry out the treatment, and there is a medical basis for doing so.

The consent issue depends on whether the patient has capacity - ie they can demonstrate that they understand the treatment, risks/benefits and can express it. If the patient lacks capacity (eg Alzheimers dementia), the doctor can then consent on behalf of the patient. The family's wishes are taken into consideration but not necessarily followed.

Under the circumstances the doctors were acting appropriately but because they were not forthcoming with the consequences they are getting taken to the courts. If they had warned the family of the consequences beforehand this probably would never even get past an ambulance chasing lawyer.

Or, indeed, bothered to check what the family's wishes were!!

No I can understand their wishes. But as Cloaked Wolf has pointed out she would probably not have recovered from CPR anyway. Their wishes were obvious though they were too arrogant or lazy to explain the outcomes and alternatives.