Moral Conundrums
It's amazing what people will insist upon, convinced that they're right in their interpretation of what has merit and value through the lens of religious conviction. In Winnipeg, the family of an 84-year-old man suffering from pneumonia and pulmonary hypertension, on life support in hospital for the last six months, refuses to agree with doctors' advice to withdraw life support.
The man, Samuel Golubchuk, an Orthodox Jew, is in a barely conscious state, and is susceptible to pain. His son and his daughter claim that their father is aware of everything happening about him. Doctors point out that they cannot prescribe pain relief for the man because he's on dialysis as the medication would interfere with his kidney function.
Winnipeg's Grace Hospital has a truly perplexing situation on their hands. Three of their critical-care doctors claim that to treat Mr. Golubchuk would result in the prolongation of his suffering; an ethical dilemma for them.
Even the specialized critical care nurses assigned to his support claim they feel they are 'assaulting' someone, without hope of a promising outcome. But his children contest the doctors' claims of treatment futility, insisting that removing life support for their father would directly violate his religious beliefs. They obtained a court injunction forcing the hospital to continue to keep their father alive.
Because of the expert resources required to do just that, the hospital has had to close two of their intensive-care beds, and transfer "specialized skills" nursing staff to the man's bedside, to obey the court order. The man is clearly beyond the skills of medical science, to resurrect his physical potential. Insisting that he be kept alive when no positive outcome can be achieved is in no one's interests.
The costs associated with maintaining this dying man's lifeline, although he has no potential for future viability, are enormous. The cost of doctors, nurses, medical supplies, drugs and hospital space is one thing. Utilizing precious spare intensive-care space for a lamentably sad lost cause infringes on the right of people recovering from surgical procedures who also require intensive treatment in an already-stretched and overburdened health care system.
This situation goes quite beyond reasonable accommodation, in an end-of-life issue. No one rests easy with the decision to remove life support from a loved one. In this particular instance the stubborn resolve of two adults who claim their religious rights to be infringed upon should support be removed from their father, actually victimizes their father as much as it does society at large.
The man, Samuel Golubchuk, an Orthodox Jew, is in a barely conscious state, and is susceptible to pain. His son and his daughter claim that their father is aware of everything happening about him. Doctors point out that they cannot prescribe pain relief for the man because he's on dialysis as the medication would interfere with his kidney function.
Winnipeg's Grace Hospital has a truly perplexing situation on their hands. Three of their critical-care doctors claim that to treat Mr. Golubchuk would result in the prolongation of his suffering; an ethical dilemma for them.
Even the specialized critical care nurses assigned to his support claim they feel they are 'assaulting' someone, without hope of a promising outcome. But his children contest the doctors' claims of treatment futility, insisting that removing life support for their father would directly violate his religious beliefs. They obtained a court injunction forcing the hospital to continue to keep their father alive.
Because of the expert resources required to do just that, the hospital has had to close two of their intensive-care beds, and transfer "specialized skills" nursing staff to the man's bedside, to obey the court order. The man is clearly beyond the skills of medical science, to resurrect his physical potential. Insisting that he be kept alive when no positive outcome can be achieved is in no one's interests.
The costs associated with maintaining this dying man's lifeline, although he has no potential for future viability, are enormous. The cost of doctors, nurses, medical supplies, drugs and hospital space is one thing. Utilizing precious spare intensive-care space for a lamentably sad lost cause infringes on the right of people recovering from surgical procedures who also require intensive treatment in an already-stretched and overburdened health care system.
This situation goes quite beyond reasonable accommodation, in an end-of-life issue. No one rests easy with the decision to remove life support from a loved one. In this particular instance the stubborn resolve of two adults who claim their religious rights to be infringed upon should support be removed from their father, actually victimizes their father as much as it does society at large.
Labels: Health, Human Fallibility, Realities, Religion
posted by Pieface | 6:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home