Family argues taking 84-year-old off life support is against their faith

A legal battle is raging in Manitoba between doctors who want to take an 84-year-old man off life support and his family who says pulling the plug would be tantamount to murder according to their religious beliefs.

Samuel Golubchuk's family says it would be a sin under the Orthodox Jewish faith to "hasten" his death by removing the ventilator and feeding tube.

"They believe that an intentional act which likely will result in death is murder," said Neil Kravetsky, the family's lawyer.

The family had obtained a temporary court order to thwart doctors' plans to remove life support, but the fight became public Tuesday whenthe family asked the judge for an extension.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Perry Schulman has reserved his decision on the matter.

TheWinnipeg manwas first taken to the emergency department in October with heart problems and pneumonia, but was also dealing with brain injuries from a fall four years ago.

After a month of hospitalization, doctors atWinnipeg's GraceGeneral Hospitaltold Golubchuk's family of their decision to withdraw life support.

But Golubchuk's son and daughter decided to fight the decision, arguing thatif he is alive, then there is still hope.

"There's no requirement [in the religion] to resuscitate if you're gone. The Jewish people don't believe that you prolong death," Kravetsky said. "But if there's brain activity and heartbeat, that person is still alive."

In a court affidavit, Rabbi Y. Charytan, who works for Jewish Child and Family Services, said Orthodox Jews believe "life must be extended as long as possible and we are not allowed to hasten death."

Bill Olson, alawyer representing one of the doctors, countered that technology is the only thing keeping Golubchuk alive.

Hesaid Golubchuk was treated for weeks to see whether his condition improved, but when it didn't,doctors decided to withdraw life support.

"No doctor I know has ever tried to play God. They take very seriously their ethical obligation to only afford that which they honestly believe would be appropriate, beneficial care to the patient," said Olson.

"And in this case, they concluded nothing more they could do would be any potential benefit and the condition he's in is irreversible."

Policy drafted

Olson said physicians have the sole right to make decisions about treatment, even if it goes against the patient's religious beliefs.

That's a stance Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons is in the process of enshrining as a formal policy. The college has drafted a policy giving doctors the authority to stop or withhold medical treatment, even if the patient or family disagrees, as long as certain criteriaare met.

The debate overwho should hold the power in end of life decisions recently arosein Alberta, where the Calgary Health Region is fighting a court decision that lifted a do-not-resuscitate order on a comatose patient. The region argues doctors, not judges,should have the final say.

But many Canadians appear to believe family members, not doctors, should make the final call.

An Angus-Reid survey released Tuesdaysuggests 68 per centofthose surveyedwant family members to make the decision on whether to remove a patient in a vegetative state from life support.

The poll, an online survey of 1,057 randomly selected adults, was conducted Dec. 3-4 and is reliable within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.