Grace not amazing.
......................................
Some time in mid-September a Manitoba judge will make what is likely to be a life-or-death decision in the Samuel Golubchuk case.
Golubchuk is a frail, elderly man whose condition while in hospital deteriorated to the point doctors felt there was no hope of recovery. He was placed on life-support last November and his family subsequently took the hospital to court when it sought to withdraw those measures.
Golubchuk's family was granted a temporary injunction last December preventing the hospital from removing him from artificial life-support.
The case involving Golubchuk's care had originally been slated to begin in December. Last week, however, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Marc Monnin agreed with an application by the Grace Hospital to move up the trial date.
The Grace says caring for Golubchuk is taking a toll on staff and already one intensive care specialist has stopped working rotations at the hospital in protest.
At the heart of this matter is the type of emotional end-of-life decision faced by numerous families every year. Have we done enough for our loved one? Should we let them go?
In order to ensure all reasonable attempts at treatment are considered, dying patients are often artificially kept alive when their own systems fail. As well as a duty of care, it is also a kindness to families, giving them a chance to prepare for what will likely happen when artificial supports are withdrawn.
In a hospital situation, indefinite life-support really isn't considered a long-term option. That type of care places tremendous demands on staff and resources and may well be unfair to others.
ETHICS
In December 2007, Arthur Schafer, director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, was asked to comment on the case.
Appearing on Canada AM, Schafer said "families must realize that with a shortage of hospital beds, one person's provision is another person's deprivation."
Schafer also noted that while bodies can be kept alive through artificial means, "the person you are can't be kept alive ... I don't think that's a sensible use of resources and I don't think that the hospitals can accommodate such wishes."
The Golubchuk family, not surprisingly, disagrees.
On their Save Samuel Golubchuk web page, his daughter Miriam states he is currently receiving "basic care" at the hospital, which includes being given food and water and assistance in breathing through the use of a ventilator.
She further says "rather than giving up, the hospital is continuing to fight us for the right to kill our father."
The family has started a petition seeking to demand the hospital cease its case against them and "continue providing treatment for Sam according to their wishes and instructions."
Whether the removal of extraordinary artificial measures of life-support constitutes "killing" someone is a matter of semantics and better left for the courts to decide.
Make no mistake. however. It's a decision sure to have wide-reaching significance.
Most families, my own included, have been or will be faced with this type of heart-wrenching decision. Equating it with killing a loved one just seems wrong.
Wrenching decisions over life and death
8mm
