Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Ending life with grace and agreement

Amir Attaran, Paul C. Hébert and Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ April 22, 2008 178 (9) 1115-1116; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080472
Amir Attaran LLB DPhil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul C. Hébert MD MHSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew B. Stanbrook MD PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2008 Canadian Medical Association

Making the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining care is difficult at the best of times, but when families and caregivers disagree about the course of action, the conflict disrupts patient care and consumes enormous personal resources for all parties.

The case of Samuel Golubchuk, an elderly and very ill man at the threshold of multiple organ failure in a Winnipeg intensive care unit, illustrates this problem. The doctors wanted to withdraw care, and they met with the family on several occasions to seek consent; however, a religious impasse was reached, and Mr. Golubchuk's son and daughter would not give consent.

“Doctors don't know everything,” Percy Golubchuk told CTV News, “God is the major doctor.”1

Remarkably, God is a serviceable lawyer, too. The family precipitously went to court and, “without notice to the defendants,” got an injunction forbidding the hospital and doctors “from removing the plaintiff … from life support care, ventilation, tube feeding, and medication” — an order that if violated could lead to fines or imprisonment.2 The family believes that their father “should be kept alive as long as his heart is beating and he's functioning and has got brain activity,”1 according to their lawyer and that “Any hastening of the death process is murder.”3

If this is murder, many of Canada's doctors belong in jail. Legally, doctors are practitioners of a duty of care. An obligation to provide extraordinary care to dying patients, including patients who are minimally responsive, forces one to breach the everyday duty of care, which is to provide the best balance between probable harms and foreseeable benefits. That is why an approach that excludes the option to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining care is unworkable.

Mr. Golubchuk's case is in no way unique. In England, the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland also dealt with a patient in a persistent vegetative state.4 But instead of a family that refused to consent, the family accepted that their loved one should die, and it was hospital administrators who feared that disconnecting the feeding tube would be illegal and murder — the opposite of Golubchuk's case. England's highest court decided that removing the feeding tube was an “omission” rather than an “act” that triggers murder and permitted it to be removed. Tony Bland died shortly thereafter.

What can we learn from the Golubchuk and Bland cases? First, the considered withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining care is not “murder.” Lawyers may make it seem so by exploiting the dubious distinction between acts and omissions — when in truth discontinuing invasive procedures such as tube feeding is both an omission (e.g., discontinuation of care) and an act (e.g., removal of a tube). Wise judges would reject this linguistic charade and bravely adopt an ethical approach to decision-making, which always emphasizes the best interest of the patient. In these circumstances, it is the disease that kills the patient, not the doctor or the treatment.

Second, some families will overreach in their demands to preserve life, often because they use fundamentalist religious beliefs or cultural norms to narrowly define the best interest of the patient. In dying, just as in living, no right, including the constitutional freedom to one's religion, is absolute. Requiring caregivers to stand in the way of the natural process of dying by forcing them to impose what, under the circumstances, are extraordinary measures with no foreseeable benefit, should not be accepted by the courts or society at large. Although religion and culture assist in better understanding the context of decision-making, it should not impinge on the rights of others. To make religion a factor in allocating a hospital bed is inequitable, for it privileges religious patients over others who may need care more urgently and whose chance of a favourable outcome may be better.

Third, it is right that families who have strong beliefs, religious or otherwise, about the deaths of their loved ones be heard. In dying, just as in living, procedural fairness must be respected. The judge in Mr. Golubchuk's case noted that “communication broke down between the [family] and the physicians” and criticized the hospital for not following the recommendation of the Canadian Critical Care Society, which recommends “recourse to either mediation or adjudication” in cases of impasse.2 By not providing impartial, arm's-length mediation as part of a well-established process including clear rules and laws, the hospital paid dearly: it was sued.

Finally, it may be worthwhile to consider law reform. The State of Texas, for example, enacted the Texas Advance Directive Act, 1999, which provides a framework and a timeline for resolving disputes.5 It outlines the process for families and physicians to talk and includes a dispute-resolution mechanism as well as a time limit of 12 days. If the process fails, the hospital, in conjunction with the family, must try to arrange transfer of the patient to another physician or institution willing to give the treatment requested by the family. If no such provider can be found, the hospital and physician may unilaterally withhold or withdraw therapy that has been deemed futile, although the patient or surrogate can ask a state judge for an extension of time. In a recent study of the implementation of this directive over 2 years at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, the authors found that the data “suggest that the law represents a first step toward practical resolution of this controversial area of modern health care.”5 Although the whole law is not perfect, it offers an instructive example. And first steps are important.

Ultimately, neither side in the Golubchuk case seems especially in the right. The hospital failed the family by not giving them a fair and impartial hearing, and the family failed society by using their religion to privilege their father over other needy patients. As the judge noted, the 2 sides “might have avoided litigation” if they had used “a knowledgeable, trained and objective mediator.”2 To avoid future failures, widespread adoption of formal mediation processes, or even better, laws like that in Texas, would provide much needed clarity.

Footnotes

  • With the Editorial-Writing Team (Rajendra Kale MD, Barbara Sibbald BJ, Ken Flegel MDCM MSc and Noni MacDonald MD MSc)

    Competing interests: See www.cmaj.ca/misc/edboard.shtml

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    CTV.ca news staff. Orthodox Jew to remain on life support, trial next. CTV [Winnipeg] 2008 Feb 13. Available: www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080213/life_support_080213/20080213?hub=Health (accessed 2008 Mar 25).
  2. 2.↵
    Golubchuk v. Salvation Army Grace General Hospital and others, 2008 MBQB 49. Available: www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/2008/2008mbqb49/2008mbqb49.html (accessed 2008 Mar 18).
  3. 3.↵
    Dehn K. Kelly Dehn covers the family's battle [video]. CTV [Winnipeg]. 2008 Feb 13. Available: www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080213/life_support_080213/20080213?hub=Health (accessed 2008 Mar 18).
  4. 4.↵
    Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821 (Eng. Family Div., Eng. C.A. and H.L reported together).
  5. 5.↵
    Fine RL, Mayo TW. Resolution of futility by due process: early experience with the Texas Advance Directives Act. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:743-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 178 (9)
CMAJ
Vol. 178, Issue 9
22 Apr 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ending life with grace and agreement
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Ending life with grace and agreement
Amir Attaran, Paul C. Hébert, Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ Apr 2008, 178 (9) 1115-1116; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.080472

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Ending life with grace and agreement
Amir Attaran, Paul C. Hébert, Matthew B. Stanbrook
CMAJ Apr 2008, 178 (9) 1115-1116; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.080472
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Faith and the end of life
  • Faith and the end of life
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Do ask, but don’t screen: identifying peripartum depression in primary care
  • Accroître le rayonnement du JAMC
  • Extending the impact of CMAJ
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • End-of-life care & decisions
    • Geriatric medicine
    • Shared decision-making (doctor-patient)

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire