News Sections
Family fights to keep 84-year-old on life support
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(59)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Mon. Dec. 17 2007 10:31 AM ET
In what could be a precedent-setting decision, a Winnipeg court will rule on whether an 84-year-old brain-injured man who cannot walk, speak, eat or breathe on his own, can be removed from the machines that are keeping him alive.
Samuel Golubchuk has been in intensive care for four weeks with no sign of improvement, and doctors want to remove him from life-support systems, saying it's only a matter of time before he dies.
His family, however, maintains that doing so would constitute a sin under Golubchuk's Orthodox Jewish beliefs and is equal to assault because it would hasten his death.
"The family knows that there is a very poor prognosis for Mr. Golubchuk, but he's alive now and according to their beliefs, they believe that he should be kept alive as long as his heart is beating and he's functioning and has got brain activity, he's alive," Neil Kravetsky, the lawyer representing the family told Canada AM on Monday.
Golubchuk's family was granted a temporary injunction on Dec. 11 to keep him alive while a judge in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench considers the decision.
Golubchuk is being treated at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital.
The court's decision could have a far-reaching impact on Canadians trying to make decisions about their relatives at the end of their lives, said Arthur Shafer, director of the University of Manitoba Ethics Centre.
"Mr. Golubchuk was plugged into life support when they weren't sure whether he would benefit or not -- and once they discovered that he wouldn't benefit, what this family is saying is that if they disconnect him, they're committing murder," Shafer said.
"That means we have thousands of murders every year in Canada done by doctors, which I think is a completely untenable position."
In the majority of cases, Shafer said, decisions are made through dialogue and discussion between family members and physicians. In some cases, hospitals will keep a patient on life support long after it is justified medically to do so, simply to accommodate the family, he said.
But there comes a point, Shafer said, when families must realize that with a shortage of hospital beds, "one person's provision is another person's deprivation."
"So we can say to Canadians, yes, all of you can be kept alive forever, but the person you are can't be kept alive, your body can 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," Shafer said.
Kravetsky, however, said doctors aren't in a position to determine a person's quality of life and where there is life, there is still the possibility of a recovery.
Golubchuk has been in hospital since Oct. 26. He had a pre-existing brain injury from a fall in 2003, that resulted in the removal of part of his brain.
He was admitted with pneumonia and a heart that was struggling to beat regularly.
Because he had MRSA, an infection that resists antibiotics, he wasn't a good candidate for a pacemaker. He also had poor kidney function.
The hospital says the decision to remove Golubchuk from the ventilator had nothing to do with freeing up resources, but was made strictly on medical grounds.
There is no word on when the court will hand down its decision.
User Tools
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(59)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
Loomis Poon
0
said
0
Gregory Boudreau
0
said
0
In our country, we respect people'e rights, including religious convictions, so why not in this case? I bet they (hospital) are wanting the bed for someone else. We must let people die with dignity, not like this.
It is looking more like if you are old and get sick, people are deciding when you die.
Kato Katlin
0
said
0
Sammy
0
said
0
John
0
said
0
Marty
0
said
0
PBW
0
said
0
We have the ability, these days, to do a lot, medically. However, the decsion must be made initially: Just because we can, should we in this case?
All religious arguments aside, I would not like to be doctors or judge in this decision, as any action - or inaction - leaves them in an untenable situation, subject to criticism from all and sundry.
Richard
0
said
0
I'm not sure why this is being blown way out of proportion like this. Maybe that is the real problem.
Rhody77
0
said
0
BK
0
said
0
Jack Godard
0
said
0
Donna O
0
said
0
jbc
0
said
0
Chris from Kitchener
0
said
0
island girl
0
said
0
All my life I've had to jostle for positions for university, jobs, etc. and now I'm told to "Move over, sweetie, and make room for someone younger. You cost too much and take up too much room!"
Johnny
0
said
0
Marty
0
said
0
Nancy Chuipka
0
said
0
If it were up to "God", he would have already died.
Teresa
0
said
0
Sylvie Anne
0
said
0
John
0
said
0
Mark
0
said
0
Bruce King
0
said
0
During all the debate, please keep one thing in mind. The last wishes of the patient should take precedence over everything else, including religious beliefs. What would he request if he had the ability to communicate?
AJ Benny
0
said
0
hilary
0
said
0
Chris
0
said
0
People used to die, and it was chalked up to natural causes. In some areas we have come way too far with medical science and forgotten that we cannot cure all.
Denise
0
said
0
George V.
0
said
0
Zak
0
said
0
Jack
0
said
0
Layton
0
said
0
Mike
0
said
0
Chan
0
said
0
Cathy
0
said
0
SLC
0
said
0
Gloria
0
said
0
Donald E. Austin
0
said
0
If they are truly concerned of God's will, if God wants him to survive, he doesn't the equipment mankind poduced
Cruel, but factual
DEA (RN)
J.R.
0
said
0
Great sense of justice.
Patrick from Waterloo
0
said
0
In cases like this we must decide what to do as a society. If doctors say there is no hope, the family should be required to assume responsibility for all costs.
Space and costs aside, I'm more concerned about MRSA. Does this mean the man was treated with high power antibiotics when he had little to no hope for recovery? If this is the case forget the lost bed -- we should stop breeding super bugs in mechanically supported bodies.
JD
0
said
0
The family, has to, how ever hard it is.Be objective, step back and really think of their relative, and ask themselves if this is how their relative would want to spend their remaining days.
And is this how they want to remember their loved one.
I think it is a selfish decision by the relatives to do this, and for their lawyer to say that the physicians cannot,"determine a person's quality of life" isn't that what they went to Medical school for? No doubt the doctors are not God, but I do believe they have the knowledge and expertise to know that with everything that is medically wrong with this gentleman, his quality of life is not that great right now. And will not improve.
I believe that if the family wants to continue to have their relative on life support for his remaining days, they should have to pay the costs.
I have been in the same position as this family's, and it was a very hard decision to make. But I knew that allowing my loved one come to rest is what they would want.
This is why when a person is admitted into a hospital for any procedure, they should really consider a living will.
Chris from Kitchener
0
said
0
Colin
0
said
0
susan
0
said
0
rm
0
said
0
This way both sides get what they need.
KJ
0
said
0
Joel-Sebastien Newman
0
said
0
zippn
0
said
0
Sherry - Ottawa
0
said
0
Lina
0
said
0
And for everyone saying that the family should be allowed to keep him like this if they would be willing to pay the costs, why not make that argument for anyone in a hospital? Why is someone who is younger more deserving of medical resources and funds? It sure would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers if no one had free care, especially those who need it the most, like this man.
Jason
0
said
0
The Jewish perspective is that a living soul has value. This value is not effected by the 'quality of life' standard now used to determine who is allowed to live.
The general principal is one is not allowed to be proactive in hastening death. There are situations where a DNR would be permitted.
Through a living will a person can decide who will make their medical decisions for them. If there is no living will the decision falls to the family. The doctors should work with the decision maker to determine what is best for the patient. The final decision should rest with the people who cared about the patient during life. Should life and death decisions ever be made by someone who sees their patient as a waste of hospital resources?
Joanne Tremblay
0
said
0
John T
0
said
0
Society will be unable to sustain such costs or provide the resources currently available within the decade. Given the convexity of cost curves, it is necessary to begin doing what must be done in the present period.
The family has done their best. So has society, so has the gentleman...there is no practical or logical argument for failing to set them all free from this prolonged inevitability.
Jeff R.
0
said
0
Hanoch Bernath
0
said
0
This is not a multiple choice exam,you have 3 hours to write a coherent answer. Please make sure you phrase your answer as a logical self sustaining argumnent with proofs and references as necessary.
Matt
0
said
0
You asked the right question.
"Are the family willing to foot the bill for the extra costs and space this dying man is taking."
In Canada the answer is no. We can't pay for our own health care, and we get the kind of health care the government wants.
In this case the sickening part is the government isn't just saying they won't continue to provide life support, they are saying the family isn't allowed to provide it either.
This makes me want private health care so I could at least have the option to keep my loved ones alive.
Marky
0
said
0
The man has already had part of his brain removed, his kidneys have failed, AND he can't respond to antibiotics.
Oh, I almost forgot - he is 84.
Let him go in peace.
Linda J.
0
said
0
Rhody77
0
said
0
Linda
0
said
0