Samuel Golubchuk has recently been stirring up a great debate between doctors, lawyers, judges, and family members -- all without moving or talking. The 84-year old man was shown to have minimal brain activity when doctors decided to end his life support treatment. However, this sparked protest from his children, who claimed to see improvement in their father, including response to their presence.
The problem is that in Manitoba, where this case is unfolding, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba's policy dictates that physicians have full discretion of when patients should be taken off life-support. Even though physicians are directed to consult the family, they are allowed to stop treatment even if the family disagrees. In some cases, treatment might be stopped immediately. Physicians are not even given any guidelines for determining when life support should be removed, as there are “far too many scenarios and technology is always changing,” according to Dr. Bill Pope, Registrar with the College.
Such a right clearly overextends the power which should be given to any physician. Physicians are supposed to be bound by the principle of beneficence – to do no harm. The decision to end life support should not be in their hands; in my opinion this is tantamount to euthanasia. Ideally it should be the family members or a third party deciding when to remove life support. However, there is an issue in this too; just like the issue of therapeutic misconception, family members may cling to the impossible hope of recovery and refuse to remove life support, diverting space and resources which could be used for other patients. Or perhaps they themselves do not want to be the ones making the decision to end life support. In light of this, perhaps it would be best to not have the decision lie solely in the hands of one party, or to formulate more rigid guidelines for when life support is to be removed.
Source: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-2-21/66337.html
3 comments:
I would just like to point out that the issue of limited resources ought not to be used as an argument supporting euthanasia. If we establish that those who require life support to survive and have no hope of recovery, ought to be taken off life support, then it creates in our society a duty to die. By that I mean the elderly, the mentally-retarded, the handicapped, etc. who are all a "burden" to society should be killed off so that the resources that would have been used to support them can be distributed more "efficiently".
One of the main problems I see with the issue of life-support and its removal is the fact that most people/patients believe that miracles will happen to them. I read an article in the New York Times Magazine a few weeks ago entitled "Miracle Workers", in which the author outlines an argument that many people nowdays assume that they will be the recipients of medical miracles. This is a problem, because people can cling to false hope even when the odds are significantly against them. The author's point was that people expect to be that one person out of 40,000; to be that one person who wins the lottery.
To address the issue of resources in terms of pulling the plug on life support, I would like to say that I don't see a problem with keeping someone on life support as long as that family is supplying the resources to do so. On the flip side, however, if would be terrible to allow the family to pull the plug just because they could not supply the necessary money to keep them alive.
It is an extremely tricky issue, and I agree with Mike that the decision should not be left to one party. There should be communication between doctors and the family of the patient, and perhaps even second opinions from other doctors and families who had been in similar situations.
I agree with Yuri's point that people expect miracles. Obviously, the same applies to therapeutic misconception. I would speculate that this is mainly an American phenomenon.
We generally expect our medical system to cure just about anything that may ail us (provided that we have access to sufficient monetary resources). In fact, our medical system can fix most things. However, as Americans, we do not like to be told that something is technologically beyond us. I think this is part of the "American spirit": we expect that our money can buy whatever we need, and we expect our medicine to conquer nature. This stems from the massive steps medicine has taken in the last 100 years, such as conquering polio and smallpox, as well as creating artificial organs. In other countries, the medical system is simply not capable of providing the most advanced procedures. I suspect that the people of these countries do not expect such miracles.
With regard to Mike's post, I also agree that there should be a third party involved in any decision to allow a person's life to end. That third party should be guided by certain principles. Of course, the tricky part is defining those principles. I'm not even going to try. However, I do think there are certain issues that must be considered, beyond the individual's condition.
For example, in the US, many hospitals are overcrowded and understaffed. Taking care of a person who has little chance of recovery is a waste of scarce resources which would be better used saving other lives. Also, the family's financial status should be considered. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of a capitalistic system: at some level, it gives lives monetary value. Of course families will find these things hard to accept, but, in the end, such things are part of life.
Post a Comment