Should medicare dollars be wasted like this:

[WIP]

Since no one else has mentioned this case yet, let's review:

WINNIPEG — Two critical care doctors have quit working at Winnipeg’s Grace Hospital rather than obey a court order to treat Sam Golubchuk, an 84-year-old Orthodox Jewish man who has been on life support since last fall.

A third doctor has refused to act as an attending physician to Golubchuk, but is still working in the hospital’s intensive care unit.

Golubchuk is alive today because his children obtained an injunction last November preventing doctors from removing his life support against the religious beliefs and wishes of his family. The injunction requires doctors to treat Golubchuk until a trial takes place in the case. It’s scheduled to begin Sept. 15.

The resignation of Dr. Anand Kumar and Dr. Bojan Paunovic leaves only four other critical care doctors working at the hospital. One of them is Dr. David Easton, who refuses to attend to Golubchuk. All three doctors have privileges to work at other hospitals in the city.

In a letter to the hospital, Kumar wrote: “If we honestly continue to follow the court mandate… we will likely have to continue to surgically hack away at his [Golubchuk’s] infected flesh in order to keep infection at bay.” He added that continued treatment “ is tantamount to torture.”

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com...0&Itemid=86

Now stop and think about this for a moment! We haven't even made it to the argument to allow active euthanasia yet and our system still can't deal with people motivated by rigid religious laws! If the family had a dog at the local veterinary clinic and demanded that their dog be kept alive regardless of circumstances, the vet would have to inform them that they could be charged with cruelty to animals.................but it's okay to do it to people!

Mr. Golubchuk died on Tuesday, at least ending this little drama. The case caused a total upheaval in the hospital when three doctors resigned their hospital priviledges rather than comply with the order to continue medical treatment because of the family's wishes. And that doesn't even address the costs of keeping someone alive and dealing with future legal costs

The Winnipeg man at the centre of a controversial end-of-life debate died Tuesday, but the most important question at the heart of his case is still very much alive -- who gets to decide when a person should be pulled off life-support.

With his passing this week, Samuel Golubchuk's case became the latest in a string of legal battles over life-support to be left unresolved by the courts. His trial was slated for September, but family lawyer Neil Kravetsky said the issue is now moot. The lawyer said Golubchuk's family may sue for damages or breach of human rights, but a judge likely won't decide who gets the final say on when or if to pull the plug.

That means if another family is in a similar situation tomorrow, hospital officials and families could be left haggling over the same end-of-life questions. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/sto...p-4782310c.html

At some point, our society will have to draw up some clear universal ethical guidelines to determine end of life situations, abortion, medical research, and even animal rights! I tried in vain before to get a few fundies here to wrap their brains around the hypocrisy of allowing kosher and halal butchering of animals that a non-Jew or non-Muslim would be prosecuted for, so it looks like there are a whole host of issues where universal guidelines need to be drawn up, and for those who are want assimilation and shared cultural values, here's a good way to start: have rules and ethical guidelines that apply to everyone!

Mr. Golubchuk's children are taking comfort in the fact that their 84-year-old father's death on Tuesday came while he was still under critical care, where he had been for the past eight months.

"They fought very hard for him and they're very upset. But they feel God ended up taking him," said family lawyer Neil Kravetsky. Mr. Golubchuk's relatives had argued that detaching him from life support would be contrary to the family's Orthodox Jewish convictions.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/sto...p-4782310c.html

How nice! Of course the family lawyer didn't explain why God's power is always so weak in these issues! If all-powerful creator of the universe wanted a man to be kept alive, it seems natural that he could have kept him living whether he was on life support or not!

The Winnipeg Free Press has a poll question asking if it was worth the 450,000 to keep this man on life support......so far almost 90% are voting against!

[eyeball]

This is a cost that should be borne by those religions that are prepared to fight for it. Is there such a thing as religous insurance? Perhaps there should be.

[jdobbin]

The man died two days ago.

It was traumatic for many of those who worked his case since it felt like torture to many of them.

[WIP]

The man died two days ago.

It was traumatic for many of those who worked his case since it felt like torture to many of them.

Well doc, I don't know if the healthcare situation in Winnipeg is equivalent to here in Ontario, but if it is roughly similar -- with shortages of doctors and nurses, shortages of beds in hospitals -- is there any sane reason for devoting scarce medical resources to keeping someone alive on life support who can never again regain consciousness or some sense of self-awareness and have any sort of life worth living?

Before this man died, the lawyer for the family was brazen enough to declare that it would be "murder" to take him off life support. He had the gall to say the doctors would be morally equivalent to Robert Latimer( the guy who murdered his 12 year old disabled daughter), no wonder everyone hates lawyers! He also announced yesterday, that the law suit started on Tuesday will continue. http://www.cjob.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1013685 Who gets to pay for that?

Now that Mr. Golobchuk has died, I'd like to know if the lawyer, the family and all of the countless prolife groups who made the bizarre case that this man needed to be kept on life support so he could die a "natural death," to consider the possibility that others may have died waiting for ICU beds while they were expressing their devotion to their religious principles. They may believe that every moment is precious, regardless of its quality, and needs to be prolonged whatever the cost; but the guarantee of religious freedom shouldn't include the right to make unreasonable demands on the healthcare system!

[Shakeyhands]

Well doc, I don't know if the healthcare situation in Winnipeg is equivalent to here in Ontario, but if it is roughly similar -- with shortages of doctors and nurses, shortages of beds in hospitals -- is there any sane reason for devoting scarce medical resources to keeping someone alive on life support who can never again regain consciousness or some sense of self-awareness and have any sort of life worth living?

Intesive care guidlines at hospitals in Ontario require a 1-1 nurse patient ratio. This is according to a very close friend who works as a IC Nurse at South Lake Regional.

[AngusThermopyle]

Intesive care guidlines at hospitals in Ontario require a 1-1 nurse patient ratio. This is according to a very close friend who works as a IC Nurse at South Lake Regional.

And your point is?

[Shakeyhands]

And your point is?

Just commenting on the shortages comment... Thanks though.

[AngusThermopyle]

Just commenting on the shortages comment...

Ah, I see.

Well thats a subject that could fill an entire thread on its own, very true though.

[guyser]

Intesive care guidlines at hospitals in Ontario require a 1-1 nurse patient ratio. This is according to a very close friend who works as a IC Nurse at South Lake Regional.

That may be for critical care instead of ICU care.

As I recall , since I spent over a year in the ICU (visitor) I dont think they had a 1:1 , but more like a 1:3 or 4. Granted they are small rooms so she isnt far at anytime.

[jdobbin]

Well doc, I don't know if the healthcare situation in Winnipeg is equivalent to here in Ontario, but if it is roughly similar -- with shortages of doctors and nurses, shortages of beds in hospitals -- is there any sane reason for devoting scarce medical resources to keeping someone alive on life support who can never again regain consciousness or some sense of self-awareness and have any sort of life worth living?

The situation in Winnipeg was that one intensive care bed was used for this patient in community hospital. Anyone on a ventilator receives one to one care because blood gas readings have to be done every hour on the hour.

Two ICU beds in the main hospital had to be closed and nurses from there sent to the community hospital because dialysis was required and the community hospital didn't have the equipment or the trained staff. The patient was to unstable to travel to the main hospital.

There are 74 intensive care beds in Winnipeg and three were involved with the one patient. One bed occupied, two beds closed due to nurse transfers.

And the court case was to be heard in September.

The issue of machines maintaining life indefinitely have to be addressed as well as patient suffering. The suffering was also felt by the doctors and nurses who had to inflict pain on someone day after day.