GIVING doctors the power to decide whether someone's life is worth living is criminal, the lawyer for the Winnipeg family at the centre of an end-of-life dispute said Wednesday.
Neil Kravetsky, who is representing relatives of 84-year-old Samuel Golubchuk, called the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba's new end-of-life guidelines terrible, saying they "smack of subjectivity" and give doctors a green light to commit crimes.
The guidelines say the minimum goal of life-sustaining treatment is for patients to recover to a level where they can be aware of themselves, their environment and their existence.
Kravetsky said this minimum goal allows doctors to make value judgments and withdraw treatment should they see fit -- with or without the patient's and family's approval.
"By using those subjective tests as to what the minimum goals are, they're leaving it up to doctors to make a decision on that person's quality of life," he said.
"If without the consent of someone you intrude on their treatment by removing them from it, it is no different than putting a pillow over their face."
Golubchuk is at the centre of a controversial legal battle that has pinned a medical decision against a patient's right to decide to continue treatment.
Golubchuk's relatives sought a court injunction in December after Grace Hospital physicians wanted to remove the man's feeding tube and ventilator that was keeping him alive. Kravetsky said discontinuing life support goes against Golubchuk's religious beliefs as an Orthodox Jew.
Golubchuk suffered a brain injury in June 2003 after a fall, but could still communicate and understand. He was admitted to hospital last October with pneumonia and pulmonary hypertension and was placed on life support Nov. 3.
Two weeks after the court injunction, Golubchuk's neurological condition improved and was seen by medical staff to be "awake. "
While the college's guidelines for doctors state that Manitoba law upholds the right for physicians to decide to withdraw treatment, Kravetsky said that is simply untrue.
He said the guidelines won't influence the outcome of the Golubchuk case.
Medical ethicist Pat Murphy said the college has put patients at an instant disadvantage.
"You and I didn't elect the college," Murphy said. "Discussions around withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment aren't solely medical decisions."
jen.skerritt@freepress.mb.ca
Web poll
Do you agree with the College of Physicians and Surgeons that the ultimate decision to continue life-sustaining treatment lies with the doctor?
Cast your vote at:
winnipegfreepress.com
PREVIOUS
