This would have been a bigger story in the USA where patients still have the right to fight these things. In New Zealand, doctors forced a badly injured teenager–Kimberly McNeill, center in the photo at left–off of life support. But contrary to their certainty, she didn’t die. From the story:
A teenage girl whose life support was switched off by a New Zealand hospital against her family’s wishes defied the odds to recover and returned home this week — walking and talking. Doctors forecasted that Kimberly McNeill, 18, would never recover from her severe injuries and 15 days after being transferred to Auckland City Hospital, authorities turned off the life support machine, the New Zealand Herald reported Sunday. Defying the odds, she pulled through and this week, two months after the wreck, which nearly claimed her life, returned to her parents’ home in Napier, on New Zealand’s North Island, to continue her rehabilitation, Hawkes Bay Today reported.
This is a warning. Doctors don’t know everything. Hospitals are not always right. Futile care theory not only violates patient autonomy, but it could abandon some–not many, but some–to death when they might otherwise have lived. And don’t say, “Well, these girl lived, so what’s the harm?” The harm is that was no thanks to the futilitarians. Indeed, Kimberly’s life was surely put at greater jeopardy by the futile care imposition, not the other way around.
March 10th, 2011 | 7:09 pm
New Zealand has truly “evil” people running around in its medical system. I read a book called “Expected Miracles:life and death in intensive care,” by a female doctor who actually put a feminist spin on manipulating a family into pulling life support for a disabled man. She said that in her opinion, the woman, who was from India, had been selected to marry this man because she was dark skinned and he was lighter skinned even though this “doomed” her to a life taking care of his needs. She then speculated that the wife would be better off without a severely disabled spouse, but that perhaps her culture placed so much emphasis on male headship that she couldn’t think clearly. This is the kind of thing that makes my blood boil.
March 10th, 2011 | 7:11 pm
I can’t wait to see the comments on this one!
March 10th, 2011 | 7:19 pm
Just to clarify: the doctor/author in question was from New Zealand.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Yes.
March 10th, 2011 | 8:23 pm
This woman should pursue charges against both the hospital and doctors of attempted first degree murder.
March 11th, 2011 | 9:57 am
There is of course no ethical obligation to use futile and/or burdensome care. Nutrition and hydration are never futile or burdensome. The question becomes, Whose decision is it to use or decline a particular therapy?The death panel approach takes the decision away from the patient and caregivers or manipulates caregivers into feeling guilty about continuing care. When people have it in their mind that death is better, they lose their enthusiasm to save lives. They convince themselves that all care is futile and they act accordingly. If wonder how often the people who wanted Kimberly dead decide the other way. How often do they overrule the decision of caregivers, so as to continue life support when the caregivers want the patient dead…. http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/
March 12th, 2011 | 11:02 pm
wow, Young teenagers are resilient and there bodies heal fast ect… 2 months was not enough time to pull her life support and even give her a chance. By gods grace these people are lucky she lived cuz if she didnt theres blood on their hands.Its one thing to do this to a terminally ill patient who has no promise of return and family requests it( like my father who died of brain cancer and no cure.) but this is downright SICK and unethical. Whats sa matter was the electric bill to high that month in New Zealand. Bastards
March 13th, 2011 | 2:11 pm
How do you know that she would have survived if they’d kept her on life support? Maybe it was the removal of life-support that caused her body to begin to fight for life and starting healing. I think this proves that all patients should have their life support removed, to increase their chances.
March 13th, 2011 | 8:10 pm
PREFACE: Refer to wikipedia.com Karen Ann Quinlan (landmark case on related ethics); Terri Schiavo, and Haleigh Poutre.
I’m not accusing anyone of anything. Just ruminating on issues related to the “right to die.” Karen Q’s parents wanted the breathing machine removed. Not her feeding tube nor hydration. Terri S’s husband, Michael, had a lot of hidden agendas which would be accomplished by her death. Michael had sued Terri’s OB doctor for malpractice and won (or got a settlement) that was put into a trust fund to be used only for Terri’s health treatment. He also took a lover and had two children while still married to Terri. Terri’s parents wanted to care for her. Michael wanted her dead. As a widower, her could marry his lover and use the rest of the trust fund however he wanted. Also, I fear the judge for the case had a political career growth agenda and this was a high profile case. Lots of press. Lots of name recognition. Haleigh P. was in her coma because one or more of her guardians beat her severely. Their hope, of course, was that Haleigh live. If she died, they were looking at some type of homicide charge. The teenager in New Zealand, I know nothing about agendas-I just suspect they exist. Someone was hoping to accomplish something for their own benefit and not hers. Always beware the hidden agendas. Even as a court was being petitioned to remove life support, Haleigh awoke and began playing with her doll. Finally, Terri had a urinary bladder infection which is very curable. Michael denied her treatment. He had her food and hydration sources removed. Being a relatively healthy woman, it took her 13 agonizing days to die from starvation and lack of hydration. We treat the folks on death rows better than that. Worry about the agendas.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Karen:Thanks for commenting. I am not quite so cynical as you. Michael, to be sure. But I think a lot of ideology is also behind this. The belief that they are truly doing these patients a favor and/or that these “difficult decisions” have to be made to serve a greater good. I find that a lot of this field likes to at least go through the motions of wringing their hands before they lower the boom.
March 13th, 2011 | 10:24 pm
Wesley: Sheesh! If I had read your BIO before commenting, I wouldn’t have commented.
March 19th, 2011 | 11:04 am
this is where we will be here in the US in a few years if Obamacare is allowed to stand. Repeal it now!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact