controversial case re: life support on elderly man

[ShaunN]

Dear Friends,

Here is a link to an article about a controversial case re: life support for an elderly man in a Winnipeg hospital.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080618.wdocsub18/BNStory/National/Prairies/

There are links to other articles about the case on the website.

The basics of the case are this: the elderly man (Samuel Golubchuk) is on life support at a Winnipeg hospital. The doctors at this hospital want to take him off life support and let him die because they think that there is no reasonable chance of him recovering and they believe, in essence, that he is already brain dead. His children want him to remain on life support. The situation has been complicated because, recently, ICU doctors at the hospital where he is staying have begun to resign from the ICU rather than continue to treat him. In the words of the first doctor, having to "hack away at his (Mr Golubchuk's) infected flesh" is "grotesque".

The man's children are arguing that the family should have the right to make decisions about life support and that their faith (a form of Orthodox Judaism) requires that only God decide when life ends (there seems to be an obvious contradiction here, but I won't get into that).

The whole case goes to the Supreme Court, I believe, in Sept.

Anyway, I just thought this was a thought-provoking case and that it might inspire some interesting comments. Does the family have the right to make the final decision on this kind of matter?

Sincerely,

Shaun

[escapegoat]

I say sure, they can let him live, but they need to take him home and administer the necessary treatments and procedures to keep him alive, since they're so sure that it's God's will to keep that man alive. The doctors disagree and therefore should have their own right to stop administering their care if they're so certain the man will not live.

This way, if the family is right, then their grandpa will live and they can have the bragging rights that they were right all along. :biggrin:

[Mr.EZ]

Hmm... who knows more? Doctors or lay people. Hmm...

I know I wouldn't want to live in such a condition, and the fact that medical staff are quitting thier jobs over this, really simplifies matters to me. He's brain dead and rotting, and the family is fighting a lost cause, they really need to get on with their lives, and end this poor soul's suffering.

[Hybrid2]

sound like the man's brain is already dead.they just keep the engine running.
The fammily should take care of him.i'm sure those doctors have living patients to take care off.


on a related note ,something i found discusting,was when doctors unpluged a tube that was feeding a paralize retarded woman. they just let her starve to dead.:mad:

[Michael P]

sound like the man's brain is already dead.they just keep the engine running.
The fammily should take care of him.i'm sure those doctors have living patients to take care off.


on a related note ,something i found discusting,was when doctors unpluged a tube that was feeding a paralize retarded woman. they just let her starve to dead.:mad:

If you're talking about Terri Schiavo, she was also brain-dead, had specified while sentient that she didn't want to be kept on life-support in such a situation, and it was her husband and legal guardian who told the doctors to do it.

[stealthwise]

If you're talking about Terri Schiavo, she was also brain-dead, had specified while sentient that she didn't want to be kept on life-support in such a situation, and it was her husband and legal guardian who told the doctors to do it.

And they confirmed she'd been brain-dead for, what, years before they were even allowed to do that?

[Michael P]

And they confirmed she'd been brain-dead for, what, years before they were even allowed to do that?

Oh, yeah, she suffered her injuries in like, 1992 or so, and her husband kept up hope for a while before finally deciding it wasn't going to happen. And then it took years for it to get through the courts when her parents challenged it and the nutcase right remoraed onto the situation. She finally died in 2005.

[Darediva]

This is where everyone should stop and think about whether or not he/she should sign an advanced directive. I have one signed and on file. I do not wish to have people hovering over me and wondering "what if" they do or do not disconnect life support. I want to take that responsibility into my own hands.

I will say this: my mother told me long ago that the last thing she wanted was to "rot away in a nursing home". I couldn't keep the promise to not need to have her live there after she was in need of skilled care, but I could honor her wishes not to be like "those people down the hall who don't know where they are".

When she had her coronary and stroke April of 2007, I was the one the doctor turned to and said "There is little we can do here, other than make her comfortable." When I told this to my brother, he didn't believe me, so I had to let him talk to the doctor, who then came back to me. My brother seemed to be insisting that we run more tests. I asked the doctors what they could determine without any invasive procedures. They told me they could tell from the blood work that she had suffered a coronary, but they would need to do a CT scan to see what damage had been done in the stroke. Since the CT is not invasive, I agreed to it.

The doctors came back to confirm to me that she had indeed suffered a massive stroke along with the coronary, and that there was no reversing the effects. I told them that pallitive care was what I wanted for her, because it was what she wanted for herself. She was given a patch behind her ear and could have morphine on demand. She could not swallow on her own, and we did not place a feeding tube because she didn't want that.

She never really complained at all. She passed on less than a week later at the age of 87 years and one day. It's what she wanted, and I have no regrets.

[shrike]

My mother and stepfather have it in their will I have the authority on their care if something should happen, because they said out of the three children they have they knew they could count on me to not have them go on life support.

I work in health care doing social work, she's a nurse. We've both seen that nothing good comes out of living in such a state.

... and for christ's sake, the man in that article is in his damn 80's. He's had a long life, and I doubt that even with any sort of (deluded) recovery he will be ready to go breakdancing afterwards.

[Alex L]

I say sure, they can let him live, but they need to take him home and administer the necessary treatments and procedures to keep him alive, since they're so sure that it's God's will to keep that man alive. The doctors disagree and therefore should have their own right to stop administering their care if they're so certain the man will not live.

This way, if the family is right, then their grandpa will live and they can have the bragging rights that they were right all along. :biggrin:

I agree.

The doctors have expressed their medical and professional opinion that this man is beyond help they can provide. They are entitled to do that.

The family is free to take him to another location and pay whatever amount of money they wish, to keep him alive. It's not illegal, and we live in a capitalist society, so they are entitled to do that.

[Grazzt]

I agree.

The doctors have expressed their medical and professional opinion that this man is beyond help they can provide. They are entitled to do that.

The family is free to take him to another location and pay whatever amount of money they wish, to keep him alive. It's not illegal, and we live in a capitalist society, so they are entitled to do that.

Unfamiliar with the Canadian health care system, huh?

Quick quote from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_health_care):

As it stands now, Canada does not have a parallel system: free market health care for Canadians is almost wholly banned in fields covered by the national health system; some private hospitals which were operating when the national health care plan was instituted (for example, the Shouldice Hernia Centre in Thornhill, Ontario) continue to operate, although they may not bill additional charges for medical procedures (the Shouldice Hospital does, however, make mandatory additional room charges not covered by public health insurance which place it in the upper tier of a two-tier system – welfare recipients, for example, cannot be referred there). Clinics are usually private operations, but may not bill additional charges. Private health care may also be supplied in uncovered fields and to foreigners.

So while I think they can try to find another doctor, that doctor can't make any additional money off of them (assuming this is a covered field).

[Matt Algren]

sound like the man's brain is already dead.they just keep the engine running.
The fammily should take care of him.i'm sure those doctors have living patients to take care off.


on a related note ,something i found discusting,was when doctors unpluged a tube that was feeding a paralize retarded woman. they just let her starve to dead.:mad:In addition to Michael and stealthwise's replies, which are exactly right, the feeding tube was acting as life support. By removing it (as ordered by her next of kin in lieu of a POA for health care), her body was permitted to do what it had been trying to do for years.

And taking people off of life support is no more 'playing God' than putting them on life support.

[dragonbat]

I don't pretend to be an expert in this field, but the Orthodox Jewish view is that once a person is on life support, removing them from that support is murder.

That's not the same as a DNR order by the way--if the person's heart stops beating, you are not obligated to resucitate. However, as long as that heart is beating, the patient is alive and most attempts to shorten that life is prohibited.

(Decisions are rendered by rabbinic authorities on a case-by-case basis. What I've just given over is general information and I do not have the knowledge to determine what would constitute an exception.)

[Cam63]

It's my opinion the gentleman's family are fuckwits.

[socool8520]

[QUOTE=ShaunN;7040316]Dear Friends,


The man's children are arguing that the family should have the right to make decisions about life support and that their faith (a form of Orthodox Judaism) requires that only God decide when life ends (there seems to be an obvious contradiction here, but I won't get into that).
I will. It wouldn't make a difference ih he was on life support or not. According to their belief, if they took him off support, he still has the chance of living if God wills it so. did they even think of this?

[socool8520]

Dear Friends,


The man's children are arguing that the family should have the right to make decisions about life support and that their faith (a form of Orthodox Judaism) requires that only God decide when life ends (there seems to be an obvious contradiction here, but I won't get into that).

The whole case goes to the Supreme Court, I believe, in Sept.


Shaun

I will. It wouldn't make a difference ih he was on life support or not. According to their belief, if they took him off support, he still has the chance of living if God wills it so. did they even think of this?