Posted on 12/12/2007 7:40:03 AM PST by wagglebee
A legal battle is raging in Manitoba between doctors who want to take an 84-year-old man off life support and his family who says pulling the plug would be tantamount to murder according to their religious beliefs.
Samuel Golubchuk's family says it would be a sin under the Orthodox Jewish faith to "hasten" his death by removing the ventilator and feeding tube.
"They believe that an intentional act which likely will result in death is murder," said Neil Kravetsky, the family's lawyer.
The family had obtained a temporary court order to thwart doctors' plans to remove life support, but the fight became public Tuesday when the family asked the judge for an extension.
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Perry Schulman has reserved his decision on the matter.
The elderly man was first taken to the emergency department in October with heart problems and pneumonia, but was also dealing with brain injuries from a fall four years ago.
After a month of hospitalization, doctors at Winnipeg's Grace General Hospital told Golubchuk's family of their decision to withdraw life support.
But Golubchuk's son and daughter decided to fight the decision, arguing that if he is alive, then there is still hope.
"There's no requirement [in the religion] to resuscitate if you're gone. The Jewish people don't believe that you prolong death," Kravetsky said. "But if there's brain activity and heartbeat, that person is still alive."
In a court affidavit, Rabbi Y. Charytan, who works for Jewish Child and Family Services, said Orthodox Jews believe "life must be extended as long as possible and we are not allowed to hasten death."
Bill Olson, a lawyer representing one of the doctors, countered that technology is the only thing keeping Golubchuk alive.
He said Golubchuk was treated for weeks to see whether his condition improved, but when it didn't, doctors decided to withdraw life support.
"No doctor I know has ever tried to play God. They take very seriously their ethical obligation to only afford that which they honestly believe would be appropriate, beneficial care to the patient," said Olson.
"And in this case, they concluded nothing more they could do would be any potential benefit and the condition he's in is irreversible."
Policy drafted
Olson said physicians have the sole right to make decisions about treatment, even if it goes against the patient's religious beliefs.
That's a stance Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons is in the process of enshrining as a formal policy. The college has drafted a policy giving doctors the authority to stop or withhold medical treatment, even if the patient or family disagrees, as long as certain criteria are met.
The debate over who should hold the power in end of life decisions recently arose in Alberta, where the Calgary Health Region is fighting a court decision that lifted a do-not-resuscitate order on a comatose patient. The region argues doctors, not judges, should have the final say.
But many Canadians appear to believe family members, not doctors, should make the final call.
An Angus-Reid survey released Tuesday suggests 68 per cent of those surveyed want family members to make the decision on whether to remove a patient in a vegetative state from life support.
The poll, an online survey of 1,057 randomly selected adults, was conducted Dec. 3-4 and is reliable within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
And if the man does succumb to his underlying fatal condition, he's dying of the disease, dying naturally as we all must some day, not being medically abandoned starved to death by the Powers That Be.
Please do not misinterpret my tone as hostile, as it is not intended, because you seem willing to open your mind to reason. I tend to be direct, though, when someone brings up mantras laid to rest by us with fact and reason.
You are up against a formidable array of FReepers who are armed with facts as opposed to MSM mantras. Many of us, as with me, were there on the scene and have intimate knowledge and access on what happened. As I indicated before, you would do well to thumb through a few hundred threads and posts on the subject and perhaps the mantras, all failing, will fade in your estimation as well.
However, you are not alone in this misconception although you may innocently just accept what the MSM says. Your comments are identical to those coming from the hard left, the DU, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and other left wing organs, and oh, yes, socialists and communists as well. Moreover, the troll bucket is filled to overflowing by festering trolls who could only counter with worn mantras and leftist tactics. They are contradicted point by point on these threads by facts and evidence nobody has been able to refute. On our side are those who are pro-life and we are in keeping with the pro-life perspective of the founder of FreeRepublic.
Simply, perps tried to kill Terri for a very long time and finally succeeded with the cooperation of a corrupt court, cronies, and professional euthanasia enthusiasts and finally the system allowed, nay, sponsored this murder.
For your convenience, I had already posted upthread a link to our Terri Dailies above, and it is new, but you can go back to as much info as you can handle simply by searching Terri Daily threads.
Okay, how uncomfortable are you with this? I remind you that Terri had not had a swallowing test since 1992, despite sworn affidavits from Terri's caregivers that she could swallow. Affidvits that were not allowed in Judge Greer's court.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Respondents' Emergency
Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with food
and Water by Natural Means is is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this 8 day of March, 2005.
It is clear that the credible testimony was that given by Dr. Bamhill for various reasons, not the least of which is that he has examined Terri Schiavo and reviewed her medical records.
While the attorney for the Respondents did get him to acknowledge that he could not say with certainty how much of her nutritional requirement she might be able to ingest orally, he was quite positive that in no way could she consume enough in the manner to sustain herself. The court does not feel that another medical procedure merely to specify what portion of insufficiency would result from the removal of the feeding tube warrants the granting of the Petition. Accordingly, It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Order Authorizing Evaluation, be and the same is hereby denied. http://judgegeorgegreer.com/docs/030805orderdenyfood.pdf
Good grief...are you actually saying that a guy who provides services which are paid for by the government is not their defacto employee even if it is illegal for him to accept money for said services from anybody else?
Canadian doctors bill the government for their service, nothing more . Your Why is it reasonable for government employed doctors to make this decision with the state's bottom line in mind? is , if not ignorant , stupid.
If it’s against their faith, it’s against their faith. The doctors can certainly give their professional advice and opinion, but the decision rests with the spouse of the patient.
I guess you are unaware of what happened to Terri Schiavo.
Are you sure about that? I know the hospitals in Canada are set up to charge foreigners for treatment, it's not as if they are incapable of billing someone.
Canadian citizens have long paid excessive taxes for healthcare, this is what the government promised and they can't go changing the rules when it gets expensive.
I suggest that people should be allowed to pay for keeping him on artificial life support, not because he might somehow miraculously recover, but because I think people should be allowed to be irrational as long as they don't harm others in the process.
No, that's the government's job, the government wanted it, the people gave them the money to do it, so now it's time for the government to deliver.
................................
WINNIPEG — The Canadian Medical Association says the case of a Winnipeg man being kept on life support by a court injunction could set a dangerous precedent that would force physicians to provide futile or even potentially harmful medical care when a family demands it.
The debate revolves around Samuel Golubchuk, an 84-year-old man whose doctors say has limited brain function, can't walk or eat, breathes only with the help of a respirator and, barring divine intervention, is unlikely to recover. His family says it's a violation of their Orthodox Jewish faith to remove him from life support, and their lawyer, Neil Kravetsky, argued in court this week that to do so would constitute assault and battery. The family believes it would be murder.
A judge is currently considering whether to extend the temporary injunction that is keeping Mr. Golubchuk on life support in the intensive-care unit at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. Mr. Golubchuk has been in that state of limbo since Nov. 30. In an affidavit filed with the court, a nurse said he was retaining 45 litres of water and was swollen to the point of bursting.
Jeff Blackmer, the CMA's executive director of medical ethics, said physicians are paying close attention to the case to see whether the court will side with the family in dictating the level of care that will be provided. It could set an important precedent, he said.
"Physicians may feel that they're being placed in a position where they're required to [provide futile or potentially harmful treatment] when the patient or family demands it," he said. "We don't want to see physicians making decisions with one eye on the lawyers."
According to documents filed in court, the physicians at Grace Hospital concluded Mr. Golubchuk could not recover from his ailments, and that rather than extending his life, they were prolonging his death.
"When a clinician makes that determination then the ethical standard is that physicians do not have an obligation to offer care that has been deemed futile," Dr. Blackmer said.
It would be worrisome if society chose to take those decisions out of the hands of physicians and place them with the courts, he said.
Arthur Schafer, the director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, said the case, if it goes against the hospital, could have a potentially harmful effect on the practice of medicine.
"If you bring someone into the emergency department you assume that their life may be worth saving and you get them on everything that could be needed," he said, adding that would include putting them on medication, dialysis or a respirator.
"If the case goes against the hospital on the grounds that once you plug in you can't unplug, I think people will be a lot slower to plug in, and some people may die who should have been plugged in. So the social implications of a victory for Mr. Golubchuk, his children and their lawyer would, I think, make Canadian hospitals deviate from good medical ethics."
Life-support case a risky precedent, MDs warn
8mm
Actually, this was only the diagnosis of the doctor who had already predetermined that they wanted her dead.
The courts looked at all the evidence and ruled that the doctors had properly diagnosed her condition.
TOTALLY FALSE!
However, let's go back to your previously stated theory that people should be allowed to pay for care even if the doctors are opposed to it. Terri had plenty of money (at least before her estranged husband spent it trying to kill her) and there were plenty of people willing to donate more than enough to care for Terri the remainder of her life.
Does you "let the family pay for it" theory only apply when you are confident that it's not feasible? Because that's what it sounds like.
Thank you, and I agree. I was picturing here being kept in a hospital...
It used to be that people became physicians because they WANTED to care for the infirmed. And by what twisted logic is it "harmful" to provide medical treatment when the denial of such treatment will result in certain death due to lack of nutrition and hydration?
A Queen's Bench judge decided Tuesday to take some time to think about the request of the Golubchuk family to maintain life support for their father. It is a difficult case, as most of these kind are, because it pits the belief of a family against the ethics and medical opinion of a doctor -- both parties believe they are acting in the patient's interest. The conflict has dropped the life-and-death decision in the hands of an independent arbiter...............
8mm
Doctors say that, barring divine intervention, it's only a matter of time before he dies, and after four weeks in intensive care with no improvement, they want to remove the breathing apparatus keeping him alive.
His son and daughter say that constitutes assault, and a violation of their Orthodox Jewish religious beliefs.
They have been granted a temporary injunction to keep Mr. Golubchuk on life support at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital, but their father's life now hangs on a court battle that could have far-reaching implications for Canadian families facing end-of-life decisions.....................
A conflict between faith and medicine
8mm
33 years ago I took a hit on my Biology grade by telling the prof that abortion would lead to “mercy killing” and eventually greedy hospitals and relatives deciding when people die.
A court order preventing doctors from taking an 84-year-old man off life support will remain in place, for now.
Justice Perry Schulman reserved his decision on a motion by the man's children to maintain life support following a five-hour hearing yesterday that ran into the early evening..........
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2007/12/12/4719964-sun.html
8mm
It’s a slippery slope and the moment society adopts the premise that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to take the life of an innocent human being, the next step will invariably be to expand the parameters of acceptable circumstances.
I recall with Terri Schiavo, they deemed it harmful to put even a single drop of water on her fevered parched lips as she dehydrated to death. They also posted armed cops next to her so she could die according to plan and not receive any harmful aid which may help her. Does that make sense to anyone?
But of course Michael was considered “compassionate” as he had a pizza party at her bedside while he anxiously waited for her to die.
Ultimate photo op.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.