Family fights to keep their son on life support
This next story really puts the question of bioethics to the test because it raises the question: when do we die. Recently, a hospital in Washington, D.C. asked a court for permission to remove a 12-year-old Orthodox Jewish boy from life support, claiming that the child is already brain dead as a result of a brain tumor. But the boy’s deeply religious parents believe that, by the tenets of their orthodox faith, the boy is still spiritually alive until his heart or lungs have stopped working.
As you may imagine, this is a complex and delicate story and not one that’s likely to have a happy ending – no matter which way the courts decide.
Motl Brody from Brooklyn New York has been pronounced dead. And, medically at least, this is absolutely the case. His brain is devoid of electrical function, and his pupils are fixed and dilated. He does not respond to stimulation in any way. In fact, the tissue of his brain has even begun to decompose. But because he is attached to a respirator, Motl Brody’s lungs are “working” and his heart has been beating with the aid of adrenaline and other drugs.
I have as much respect for human life as any doctor, and I’m here to tell you that this isn’t an argument about euthanasia; clinically, Motl Brody has passed away. This is not a “right to die” case.
But the family believes that, spiritually at least, Motl is alive. And thus there is “a religious obligation to secure all necessary and appropriate medical treatment to keep him alive,” according to papers filed by the Brody’s attorney Jeffrey I. Zuckerman
“You can always hope for a miracle,” Zuckerman said. “But if you are asking if they are in denial about their child’s condition, they are not.”
But consider this: the Brodys haven’t been cooperative with the hospital’s effort to bring this sad case to a reasonable conclusion. Their last visit to their son was back in July. They refuse to speak directly with the hospitals officials. Because of the tenets of Orthodox Jewish law, this debate over brain death and spiritual death has come up before. But this is the first time such a case has ended up in court.
I’ll be the first one to tell you that hospitals and doctors should be respectful of the religious beliefs of the families of patients, especially in the case of complex end-of-life issues. But by the same token, it’s just as important that the families be equally respectful of the time and efforts of doctors and hospitals (and therefore, other patients).
I happen to agree wholeheartedly with University of Pennsylvania bioethics professor Arthur Caplan who said of this case, “Doctors are well within their rights to say, ‘We are stopping.’ I don’t think medicine can become subservient to religious, spiritual, or mystical hopes and beliefs concerning how to manage death.”
Amen to that.
It’s likely all of this anguish is just extending the family’s suffering for naught; doctors estimate that Motls few remaining independent body functions could stop within days.
