A case for the law books

Nov 18, 2010 Editorial

Some events raise interesting questions, some of which people never thought about. One thing that has now dent the legal minds scouring the law books is the illness of Winston Murray, a man pronounced brain dead but who is said to still have his vital organs functioning.
Murray has been an economist and a politician. His was a most interesting life, deciphering some of the issues contained in the national budget. Such was his prowess that he was the first person reporters sought to provide answers after every presentation. More often than not his comments often came after a cursory examination of the document.
Last week, he collapsed and had to be rushed to hospital where he remains. His prominence in the society warranted the special attention of an overseas-based neurosurgeon and more media attention than he was ever given. He is currently on a life support system in the Georgetown Public Hospital and it is this that has given rise to the latest round of questions.
Reports suggest that his relatives are considering asking the medical authorities to wean him off the system. This is usually a determination made when the continued existence of a person is considered. People have been known to remain in a coma for more than a decade, most of the time hooked to a life support system.
The former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been on a life support system for almost five years and according to reports, he is showing no visible sign of recovery ever since he suffered a massive stroke. No one knows if Mr Sharon would survive if he is weaned from the machine but the authorities in that country are keeping him there, perhaps expecting a miracle of sorts.
Mr Murray is no Sharon and Guyana is no Israel. Guyana certainly does not have the resources that would allow an individual to remain on life support indefinitely. And it is this that gives rise to the question that never entered the minds of the medical authorities. Who can wean an individual off the system?
Director of Medical Services at the Georgetown Public Hospital, Dr Madan Rambarran, has said that the hospital was never faced with this situation and as such, new ground is being chartered, not that anyone has as yet asked him to wean Mr Murray from the life support system.
It is a question of someone being asked to play God, of determining that someone must be released from life at the request of an individual. The result is that lawyers for the hospital are perusing the legal volumes to determine whether there would be a breach of any law.
We know that the Guyana Constitution stipulates that an individual has the right to life. A life support system provides the individual with that right. Would it be a case of denying that person that right to remove him from a life support system? Is there a right to hook an individual to a life support system?
We know that a person can request that he or she does not be resuscitated in the event that he or she reaches a stage where death is imminent. Indeed, this was a medical issue in other parts of the world. Dr Madan Rambarran talks of aggressive resuscitation as opposed to what some say are routine efforts at resuscitation to maintain a person’s life—basic efforts to restart the heart and breathing.
We know that the state, not Guyana, has moved against people who declined blood transfusion for a child on the grounds that such a medical practice was against their religious belief. We also know that some states in the United States have moved to the courts to challenge the removal of a person from a life support system.
In Guyana this would be a most interesting legal issue, as interesting as legal issues that eventually fashioned a new definition of death. No longer is death defined as the period when a person’s heart ceases to function and there is no breath coming from the body. These days, medical practitioners could restart the heart and breathing. In fact, this is now a routine activity.
We do not know whether Mr Murray is displaying any vital signs on his own or whether his existence is entirely dependent on the life support system. And we also do not know whether anyone has the right to remove the life support system.

Latest News

A case for the law books

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Seven Regional Champions to vie for direct promotion single spot in...

Kennard Memorial Turf Club expresses sincere...

Canada-based Guyanese Umpire Suresh Budhoo...

Anil Beharry Real Estate and Related Services...

Alarm in West Indies over radical two-division...

After 18 years hiatus, West Indies arrive in...

Features/Columnists

Jagdeo’s policies were a disaster

Forget Begging Rich Nations: Caribbean Countries Should Act to Save Themselves

John Hess speaks, Guyanese should listen

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

A case for the law books

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]