[BRIEF NOTE] On the Samuel Golobchuk case
Jun. 25th, 2008 03:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldFrom the CBC, comes the news that the sad story of Samuel Golobchuk, a brain-dead Manitoba man who was kept on life support at his family's insistence, has come to an end.
Apart from making the obvious point that keeping someone brain-dead alive using artificial life support isn't natural either, reiterating John Derbyshire's point of two years ago re: Terry Schiavo that Golobchuk was conscious it surely must not have been an enjoyable existence, and wondering about the ethics of any religious tradition that hasn't adapted to the milieu of 21st century technology, all that I can say is that I don't ever want to be placed in a comparable situation by anyone no matter how well-meaning (by their lights). If someone does, because of misplaced hope or because of grotesque religious faith or because of some other reason, I promise to haunt them to the end of their days.
An elderly Manitoba patient who was at the center of a debate over whether doctors have the right to end a life died of natural causes Tuesday.
Samuel Golubchuk, 85, of Winnipeg had been on life-support since last fall. He died around 11:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Grace Hospital.
"We don't know the exact cause, but I think he died a natural death, and that's what he wanted. And he was with competent medical people who wanted to be there and wanted to help him," family lawyer Neil Kravetsky told CBC News Wednesday morning.
"As far as we are concerned, Sam Golubchuk didn't die for nothing. He died for what he believed in, and he died naturally."
Golubchuk's controversial case made national headlines when the elderly man's family, who are Orthodox Jews, took the hospital to court earlier this year and got an injunction forcing doctors to keep him on life-support.
Doctors wanted to remove support systems, including a ventilator and feeding tube, because he showed no chance of improving, but his family argued that would hasten his death, an act that goes against their religious beliefs.
Three doctors chose to resign from their duties at the hospital over the case, with one commenting in a letter that he felt keeping the elderly man alive was "tantamount to torture."
Dr. Anand Kumar, who made the original decision to end life-support, said continuing court-ordered efforts to keep Golubchuk alive were "grotesque" and "immoral," citing newly developed ulcers and other problems.
Apart from making the obvious point that keeping someone brain-dead alive using artificial life support isn't natural either, reiterating John Derbyshire's point of two years ago re: Terry Schiavo that Golobchuk was conscious it surely must not have been an enjoyable existence, and wondering about the ethics of any religious tradition that hasn't adapted to the milieu of 21st century technology, all that I can say is that I don't ever want to be placed in a comparable situation by anyone no matter how well-meaning (by their lights). If someone does, because of misplaced hope or because of grotesque religious faith or because of some other reason, I promise to haunt them to the end of their days.
