Winnepeg Old Man Dead (Dying) - Ethics?

Question

Just wanted to see what ppl take on this is (in the news lately):

- old man (91) has been on a ventilator and feeding tube since Nov. 2007.

-considered brain dead with zero chance of recovery

-family is jewish and demands that all efforts are put in place to continue to keep him alive

-is requiring surgeries to keep him alive (skin grafts etc to prevent skin infections from spreading due to bedsores)

-main doctor has resigned - felt it is grotesque to prolong the mans death like this. other doctors have followed suit.

-family went to court and won (siding with the family)

I understand that it is sad for the family but is this not prolonging the suffering of everyone involved?!? Is this not a tremendous waste of limited resources??

Personally, I feel that they should pull the plug and let the old man go to a better place. I hope that my family has the rational mind to see that no one would want to "live" like this and do it for me!

what say you?

Answer 1

The US aborts 3,500 babies daily....Go figure

Answer 2

I would say that as long as the family pays for it they should be able to do what they want but, it is a waste since he can't recover and he isn't even really here anymore i think they should pull the plug

Answer 3

I'm a neurosurgical intensive care RN in Canada.  If someone is considered brain dead, i.e. meets brain death criteria, they are legally and clinically dead.  There is an enormous legal difference between someone's being brain dead v.s. being in a persistent vegetative state.  Ethically, we are wasting resources on keeping people with no chance of a functional quality of life artificially supported (distributive ethics argument); we are also prolonging the inevitable -- in the majority of cases, closure for the family is not met until they know their loved one's heart has stopped.  When an individual cannot speak for him or herself because of a severe brain injury, the ethical thing to do is to consider what the patient would have wanted.  The answer to me is obvious.  To me, a human being in his state puts more stress on the family, goes against what the patient would have wanted (should the patient have been able to voice a preference), and eats up healthcare dollars that could be better spent on people who have a chance.  The fact is, the healthcare system in Canada does not have a blank check -- healthcare professionals are unable to *truly* do everything possible to, for example, save a person's dominant hand that has been injured "beyond repair," which in some cases is not because it cannot be done, but because the cost would prohibit even an attempt.

There are worse things than death.

Answer 4

Is a 91 year old man dying such a terrifying thought?

If the man is brain dead then he's only kept alive for the family to feel good - nothing more. Brain death means there's no person left, so what's the point of keeping the body "alive"?

THAT is creepy - not an old man dying, which is natural.