We might have expected the episode of Sam Golubchuk's fate to die down now that he passed on. But nope. His case touched on fundamentals that fuel the controversy, nay, the battle of pro-life against pro-lie.
.............................
By the time Samuel Golubchuk got his 15 minutes of fame, he could no longer enjoy it. For last February, when his case became headline news, he was in a coma. Having been on life support since the previous November, the doctors now wanted to disconnect the machines. His Orthodox Jewish family objected because they deemed it to be contrary to his and their religious convictions. They went to court and the judge ruled in their favour.
From the point of view of Jewish tradition, viewed in the abstract, they had a case. Judaism forbids humans to play God, however urgent the cause. Life, it's argued, is qualitative not quantitative – you're either alive or you're dead. Therefore, it's improper to assert, as the doctors at the Grace Hospital in Winnipeg seem to have done, that as Golubchuk only had minimal brain functions with no prospect of recovery, treatment should be discontinued, even though in some sense he was still alive.
His death last week while on life support has removed reported tensions at the hospital, where some doctors threatened to leave in frustration. However, the larger issue remains relevant.
In a recent radio interview, Dr. James Orbinsky, one of Canada's great humanitarians, said that when he began work with Doctors Without Borders, he found himself in an African country, one of many where the organization has been saving lives. Standing outside the medical tent, he saw movement in the adjacent tent set aside as a morgue. When he went to investigate, he discovered a man alive on top of a heap of bodies.
Those who worked in the medical tent were angry that he brought the man for treatment. They argued that as he would die soon, it was a waste of resources to look after him. Were the doctors in Winnipeg of similar mind?
As an advocate of the rights of the disabled, I know that this may have been the case. An ostensibly prudent attitude may herald the beginning of a slippery slope that would allow authorities to determine that those too costly to treat or too cumbersome to handle should be put out to die. Fearing state-sponsored euthanasia under another name, my friend applauded the judge who ordered the Winnipeg hospital to continue treatment...............
Hard choices in sustaining a human life
8mm
Another view on the case of Sam Golubchuk...
................................
To everything, says the writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is season -- a time to be born, and a time to die.
The part about being born is fine for most of us; we can talk about that. But dying? That's something we're not as comfortable discussing, whether it's our own death of the deaths of loved ones. Which is why the recent debate about whether or not Samuel Golubchuk should have been disconnected from live-saving medical technology was so important.
~Snip~
The most conservative authorities "would say that every possible measure must be taken to preserve a life, even in completely hopeless cases where there is no longer any brain activity," he says.
According to Green, Golubchuk's case was not hopeless when he saw him in December, last year. "What I saw was a man who was obviously in rough shape, but who wasn't comatose, and certainly nowhere near brain dead," he says.
Rabbi Avrohom Altein of the Ashkenzai Congregation saw Golubchuk a week before he died. Alteim says that media reports about his condition were "totally distorted," and that Golubchuk did not appear to be in serious pain. "I saw him communicate," he says.
Both men agree that although Golubchuk's children cited their Orthodox Jewish beliefs as a reason for not withdrawing medical care, the issue goes beyond Judaism.
"It's not a Jewish issue," says Altein, noting that clergy from every religion have gone through this with a family. "It affects every person who has a loved one in hospital."
Two years ago Christian author and theologian Stanley Hauerwas was in Winnipeg speaking on the topic of death and dying. Among other things, he noted that our view of death today is very different from the Middle Ages.
Today, most people say they want a quick death. Back then, however, people craved an extended period of dying, something they called a "good death."
"They wanted a lingering death, so they could be ministered to by the church and have time to be reconciled to others and to God," he stated. A disease like cancer "would not have been seen by them as an unmitigated tragedy," he added.
If that's the case, then maybe Samuel Golubchuk received a gift of a good death from his children. And maybe we received a gift of sorts, too -- a gift of being able to ponder a subject we usually avoid talking about altogether.
Thoughts on our final journey Golubchuk case offers chance to ponder subject of death John Longhurst
8mm