News Sections
Jewish man's death 'tragic' victory for family
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(58)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wed. Jun. 25 2008 10:54 PM ET
An elderly Winnipeg man whose family fought to keep him on life support, despite the concerns of doctors, was buried Wednesday after he died of natural causes.
Samuel Golubchuk, 84, passed away Tuesday at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital.
"We won," family lawyer Neil Kravetsky told CTV Winnipeg. "He got to die without some doctor pulling the plug; he got to die when God was ready for him."
Golubchuk's family had obtained a court order requiring doctors to keep him alive, saying that to hasten his death would constitute a sin under Orthodox Jewish law. The case was set for trial this September.
"In many ways, as tragic as this is, he did win in the end because he died under his own terms," said longtime family friend Michael Eskin.
Another friend, Nella Muyal, said Golubchuk's death means the legal question of who decides when someone should be removed from life support remains unresolved.
"The end is not clear," she said. "It's left for future generations -- for the rest of us -- to have to deal with the messy question of who makes the decision."
Since November 2007, doctors at the hospital had wanted to take Golubchuk off life support. They felt he had no chance of improvement.
Three doctors felt so strongly that they resigned their privileges over the case.
In his resignation letter, Dr. Anand Kumar detailed how doctors had to "surgically hack away at Golubchuk's infected flesh" because of ulcers on the patient's skin. He likened the treatment to torture.
Family members had argued Golubchuk was aware but couldn't express himself.
The elderly man had suffered a brain injury in 2003. He was hospitalized last October suffering from pneumonia and pulmonary hypertension.
Once in hospital, Golubchuk's condition deteriorated.
His case sparked a widespread debate on end-of-life issues, including topics such as the costs of keeping the terminally ill alive and physicians' ethical responsibilities.
With a report by CTV Winnipeg's Stacey Ashley and files from The Canadian Press
User Tools
Related Stories
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(58)-
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
Hilary
said
Dale Wilson
said
Congratulations to the doctors for making decisions based on their ethics rather than their pocketbook. If I'm ever ill in Winnipeg, I hope you're my doctors.
Steve
said
DB
said
Kate
said
JP Piovesan
said
Joyce
said
Earl Robert
said
Derek
said
jj
said
So many times doctors have predicted and been wrong. 9 years ago I was given 1 year to live - God had another plan.
I wonder if the patient was Muslim and his family had the same request if the doctor's reactions would have been the same.
There is a clear anti-Christian and anti-Jewish religious bias in favour of atheism and respect for Islam in our society today.
dK
said
The only time I have a problem with this is when children are involved. They do not have a voice and until they are at the age of consent, we must take into account that the Canadian system and laws should look after these children when parents refuse treatment.
I hope this man truly did follow through with his beliefs and that his family can now move on...
Leah
said
Jaid
said
In many cases, money talks more than religion. If respecting someone's beliefs were to come at the cost of an extra 1 million dollars, imagine how many more people would be suffering because of this shortage.
In the final moments of someone's life, all it takes is courage to accept their death than to blame someone else for being a "symptom" of that someone.
Terry
said
Michelle
said
Mark M
said
My family are all aware of each others wishes should this happen to any one of us. In my case, it's pull the plug....
Lina
said
Let everyone choose for themselves. I personally would rather be kept alive until my body died on its own. I know that some people would choose this option like me, and some would not.
No one, not even a doctor, has the right to make the decision of when life is not worth holding on to, except for the individual in question.
MTA
said
Boyd
said
SM
said
Chris
said
Kate
said
It is not that we do not have religious sensitivity because I do take religion seriously and take my faith into account when I make the decision as to whether or not I want to live by a machine. Religious reasons or not we are all entitled to our own opinions. As well, in this multicultural country, why is it that as a tax payer, I must pay to keep a dying man alive because of his religious beliefs? Like someone said earlier, doctors do not make these decisions quickly or lightly and if there is no hope left then why spend all the extra money and continue the pain and suffering. Should we not me remembering someones life for the good things and not a lifeless body hooked up to a machine. Again these are just my opinions but in my case as well, take me off the life support and lets get on with the healing process!
John
said
With a limited supply of hospital space, beds, doctors and other health care professionals available to look after so many people, one has to wonder what the impact was of sustaining this one life for so long with the best technology we have.
Hopefully no other 'living' patients were turned away or suffered due to neglect so the system could devote so much of its resources to this...sorry to say it, but hopeless cause.
Religion - nothing but fear and superstition. Hardly a basis for rational decisions.
MCM
said
Richard
said
I think if they wanted him to stay on the life support it is their wish. Religion should have nothing to do with that. It seems to me that religion is "used" far too often to get special needs of sorts.
It does look quite clear though that this fellow was done and basically a vegetable. Maybe people should specify in a written well prepared will that if something was to happen then what to do if they become incapacitated and unable to make any rational decisions.
my 2 cents
SIDNEY
said
I did not support the decision to prolong Mr Golobchuck's agony.
However, to clarify the religous belief. In orthodox judaism, it is permitted to refuse treatment but once initiated it is not permitted to remove treatment.
Thus, DNR or not performing a procedure that prolongs agony is permitted.
Turning of machines after they have been started or removing IV's nutrition and drugs etc where such a result will end a life is not permitted.
hope this helps
Merle Terlesky
said
It is againt his will to simply off someone by euthanasia.
There is a big difference between the two.
I had cancer in '98 and it would have been wrong to simply choose suicide over chemo, but had I gone into a coma and had my family unplug the machine would have been fine.
Losing Faith in Humanity not God
said
Marty
said
Nicole
said
Leslie
said
The Torah and Christiantiy Scripture are equal in this teaching. GOD says we should sustain life - That means life of the earth and all that is in it. It includes, People, Animals, Enviroment etc.
GOD gave us the responsibiltiy to take care of Earth. Not change Earth. Our lives are temporary. We are not owners of the earth. We are here until our time is up. The next generation continues where we have left. Life is infinite. We don't own or control it. GOD is incharge of that.
Jon
said
Sick of religion trumping reason. If 3 top doctors say there's no chance of recovery, and he's suffering, pull the damn plug! Let him be at peace.
In a case like this, only an irrational ideology like religion would choose suffering over peace.
Lana
said
D S
said
E. Frohwein
said
Walter
said
I believe in a state where medical care is provided by the people (that being the Cdn taxpayer) there should be no option to prolong life. To allow patients to pollute the system with various religious dogma is dangerous, expensive, and runs contrary to the secular country we live in. The only 'religon' that should be permitted in our publicly finded hospitals is Medicine. I cringe when I consider the resources that were wasted to sustain a shell of a man. I fail to understand why someones religious beliefs are allowed to trump the professional opinions of public doctors, or allowed to trump the common good. Should someones religious beliefs require certain medical procedures not supported by our doctors they should pay for it, not the taxpayer.
bunny
said
Matt G.
said
Why?
Jeff Shantz
said
It's hard to have sympathy for people when they create ridiculous controversies like this.
Karl Watkins
said
cdngirl
said
Don
said
TS
said
Kudos to the doctors for trying to do the right thing.
Steve
said
lily
said
2 things are in conflict here. The doctors think it's not ethical to keep the person alive with the life support. In my opinion, at the same time, it's also not ethical for the doctors to 'force' what they think is right to the patient's family. They seem to be disrespectful
Each person is entitled to their own faith, and health care team should respect that. I don't think the doctors here and all people who pass judgment to the family are being respectful.
Personally, I don't trust doctors (after seeing many of them practicing, making errors, or even listening to their conversations). They're very authoritative.
Let's say even if they're right, there might be still the Greater Power who can do the impossible. I've witnessed many of them.
So please don't think that doctors are always right. They're just very authoritative.
Malka
said
May God comfort you among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.
Ha-Makom y'nachem et'chem b'toch sha'ar aveilei Tzion v'Yerushalayim.
jj
said
Just another reason our health care system sucks. Life 7 Death are now in the hands of the accountants, eh?
And to the "Rabbi" who explains what the Bible means because it was written "long ago", that's the point of faith. Believers know that God, the Author, knew "way back then" what the future held - and still instructed his followers to live by moral standards.
Atheists who make up their own rules as they go along cannot grasp this concept. Abortion, euthanasia, quality of life matters more than life itself - you want to live that way? Your choice, but don't impose those "morals" on others.
Kathleen Hewitt
said
RRO
said
His papers should have outlined weither he wished to be kept alive over a prolonged period or not. Not withstanding that it must be the wishes of the family that are respected.
I appreciate the doctors point of view and agree with them but in the end it is the families decision. Those Doctors demonstrated emmence compassion though.
Margaret
said
If I am ever in that position with no chance of quality of life, please remove the life support and let someone who has hope of recovery use it!
jules
said
peggy
said
Mohammed
said
Doctors are not Gods; they're people and who is a man to say when hope is gone?
The family believed their loved one would die on his own without denying him air and food and letting him suffocate to death.
This story proves that faith picks up where medicine fades.
geebee
said
having a tantrum at the
expense of a man who
stood to be deprived of
a dignified passing.
kendall
said
...
said
PB
said
What a ridiculous comment considering it was mans "interference" that was keeping him alive. I for one would rather die with what ever dignity I had left rather than have a machine prolong the inevitable.
I can't help but wonder where this society is headed.
Linda Fuller
said
We'd need warehouses,to keep them all,and our health care dollars would quickly diminish.