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.
"In my view, I don't think it should ever go to court. It should be up to our legislators," Kravetsky said. "Then there's no guessing and subjective evaluation by doctors."
Dr. Brian Postl, president and CEO of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, said health officials will conduct an internal review of what happened in Golubchuk's case to determine its impact and what should be done differently should a similar situation arise.
He said doctors and health providers involved in Golubchuk's care will be having serious discussions about Golubchuk and end-of-life issues.
Postl commended health providers for how well they handled the difficult situation, despite pointed comments made public by doctors who refused to care for Golubchuk.
Dr. Joel Zivot, who assumed care for Golubchuk after three intensive care doctors refused, apologized at Golubchuk's funeral Wednesday, saying perhaps the medical system let the family down.
"He's entitled to an opinion," Postl said of Zivot's comments. "Because in this situation there's no right answer."
In the last 10 years, Postl said attitudes have shifted from the doctor making a sole decision about life-support to the family and the community being more involved. He said a positive aspect of Golubchuk's case is that it brought end-of-life issues to the forefront and inspired the entire community to discuss their opinions on the matter.
"I don't think it's any longer just about physicians," Postl said.
Arthur Schafer, director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, said it will be unfortunate if the court isn't provided with an opportunity to define the legal parameters of religious freedom.
"It's not the duty of the health-care system to provide care based on his religion if they see care as inappropriate," he said. "If doctors come to fear there could be criminal charges for removing life-support, they will be reluctant to put patients on life-support. It would have been useful for doctors to have any uncertainties clarified."
But University of Manitoba law professor David Deutscher said the issue will likely remain unresolved until a similar case arises or the Manitoba legislature gets involved in the debate. He said the issue should be dealt with by the legislature because of moral concerns raised in the debate.
jen.skerritt@freepress.mb.capaul.gackle@freepress.mb.ca
Web Poll
Was it worth $450,000 to maintain life-support in this case?
Vote online at: winnipegfreepress.com
PREVIOUS
