Doctors in Canada are closely watching the outcome of this case:
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.
Related posts:
- Buddhist beliefs and end-of-life care
- Futile care debate led to a physician resignation
- Should we charge families for futile care?
- Primary care woes in Canada
- Futile care
- Futile care
- Passing the futile care buck
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 11 comments }
Sid Schwab had this idea: Make families pay for futile care out of pocket. And how is it immmoral to disconnect a loved one from machines that are artificially giving the appearance of “life.”
“breathes only with the help of a respirator”
I’d leave the patient on the respirator, until he died. To do otherwise would constitute murder, in my opionion.
I would pull the plug in a heartbeat. It iw the natural and compassionate thing to do. We would not turture or mutilate an animal or your worst enemy like that. Why do family members do it to themselves.
99.9% of us would not want an existance like that, yet a great percentage of family will subject their loved ones to it.
i agree with sid – send the patient & respirator home, and have the family pay out-of-pocket. this will save taxpayers hundreds of millions (if not billions) of $ per year for FUTILE care.
In that case, nobody’s denying the family of their right to such treatment, but also does not force the cost on the taxpayer.
?MURDER? – that’s just nuts. what if there’s a power outtage & the respirator stops – is THAT murder? and if so, by whom, the electric company?
I mean no disrespect, Pepsi loo but your opinion is that of (probably) someone who has never seen or cared for a chronic respirator patient. It is not simple. There are infections, bed sores, blood clots, all sorts of complications. After a time the situation becomes horribly, horribly inhumane and cruel, if not borderline sadistic. Very difficult situation in which none of us would wish ourselves.
Off-topic, but it appears the Massachusetts healthcare experiment is already having problems:
http://tinyurl.com/2ffrlt
I think this is the money quote:
“There’s no justification to be paying more than Medicaid rates,” said Patrick Holland, the authority’s chief financial officer.
Can you hear those train whistles blowin’
The problem is that Canadians are imprisoned by a corrupt system that allows no freedom of choice in medical care. The family cannot pay out of pocket and take grandpa home with a respirator, say their socialist overlords.
Hence the family has no choice but to sue. I support them 100% given the nature of their entrapment in the Canadian system.
Ed Sodaro MD
Socialist overlords? Um, we vote for this stuff. We like it.
And of course, we do pay for it. If a rich person wants unlimited futile care for their family members, then they need to be agreeable to paying enough tax that everyone in the country can also get unlimited futile care. Oh, don’t want it that much? Then I guess it isn’t that important.
Remember, hospitals are all public. If someone in government needs to go to the hospital they go to a public hospital, with the same facilities as everyone else. If nothing else, self-interest ensures that medical treatment meets a reasonable standard.
Regarding Canadian government officials: “If someone in government needs to go to the hospital they go to a public hospital, with the same facilities as everyone else.”
Um, certainly not always the case. I’ve seen too many stories of Canadian officials going to the states for their health care to buy this one.
How about this for a summary: “…some are more equal than others.”
Regarding the “We like it.” statement, clearly you’re not speaking for at least one family. You know, the ones who are suing.
Responding to the Alison Cummins post above:
Alison, you make my point and miss my point at the same time. The family of this alleged “futile care” patient HAS NO CHOICE OF CARE. There are no private facilities (by law) to transfer their dad to.
Hence they also have no choice but to sue. And I support them 100%.
And not all Canadians are prepared as you are to mindlessly put up with whatever fate is rationed out to them Canadian Medicare at the end of a long waiting list. I cite the examples of leading politicians bureaucrats who jump the endless queues and head to the US for care. And the dirty little secret is that they are said to be quietly reimbursed 100% by OHIP and other provincial plans for care in the US.
Ed Sodaro MD
When one takes time to read the whole article it becomes apparent that the patient’s kidneys are shutting down. Eventually his heart will stop too.
He is not a long term patient, by any means.
The compassionate approach that respects the wishes of the family and does honor to the patient’s religion is to allow the patient to die of kidney failure etc, while on the respirator.
As far as my experience with the above situation,
all I can say, is that as
an observant Jew and medical professional I’ve had to also suffer through such medical situations.
Comments on this entry are closed.