Not every death warrants blame

Jul 23, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Losing a loved one is among the most traumatic events we will ever endure. The pain is immediate, and the grief is often overwhelming. In such moments, it is natural to seek explanations—to understand what went wrong, to ask whether more could have been done, and to wonder, sometimes with anger, whether someone is to blame. But we must tread carefully. Grief can cloud judgment, and our assumptions about the cause of death or the effectiveness of medical care may not always reflect clinical reality.

It is human to want to assign responsibility, especially when death seems sudden or unexpected. But medical outcomes are not always shaped by negligence or error. Sometimes, despite the best efforts of doctors, nurses, and caregivers, the body simply fails. And sometimes, the medical numbers we hear but may not fully understand are already spelling out a grim prognosis long before anyone is willing to accept it.

Two of the most critical indicators in emergency medicine are oxygen saturation level and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). These are not mere abstractions—they are the very metrics used to assess how severely the body is struggling to stay alive.

Let us begin with oxygen saturation, commonly referred to as SpO₂. This is a measure of how much oxygen your red blood cells are carrying as a percentage of the maximum they could carry. A normal oxygen saturation level ranges between 95% and 100%. When it falls below 90%, the brain, heart, and other vital organs begin to suffer. Below 80%, the situation is dire. When oxygen saturation drops precipitously, say to 32%, it means that two-thirds of the oxygen the body desperately needs simply isn’t there. Cells begin to die. Organs begin to shut down. Without rapid and effective intervention, survival becomes a faint hope rather than a probable outcome.

Now consider the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), a tool developed to assess a patient’s level of consciousness after a brain injury or other serious trauma. The scale scores three components: eye-opening, verbal response, and motor response. A perfectly alert person scores 15. A patient who is completely unresponsive scores 3. A GCS score of 6 indicates a patient is near comatose—perhaps responding to pain but not to voice, not opening eyes spontaneously, and showing limited motor movement. In such a state, the brain’s higher functions are severely compromised, and the chances of meaningful recovery are slim without immediate and effective medical support.

So, when we are told that a patient had an oxygen saturation level of 32% and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 6, we are not talking about someone who merely needed better attention or faster care. We are talking about a person whose body was, by any objective standard, already in deep physiological crisis. These are the kinds of readings that signal that the chances of survival are minimal.

Of course, medicine is not mathematics. Miracles do happen. Some patients beat the odds. But to assume, after the fact, that someone with numbers that severe should have survived, or would have survived if only something else had been done, is to ignore the harsh reality of human biology.

This is not to suggest that we turn a blind eye to genuine cases of medical negligence or systemic failure. Accountability in healthcare is essential. But when we are grieving, we must resist the temptation to draw conclusions that are not grounded in clinical fact. Every death deserves investigation, but not every death warrants blame. Sometimes, the condition itself is more powerful than the cure.

Recently, there was a tragic case that has captured public attention— a case where a family, understandably devastated, has asked whether everything possible was done. This is a fair question. But it must be answered with the full context of the medical facts. When a patient arrives with oxygen saturation at 32% and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 6, the sad truth is that the odds are already steeply against survival. These are not borderline readings; they are signs that the body is, quite literally, at death’s door.

We would all like to believe that if our loved ones receive timely and compassionate care, they will recover. And often, that is true. But we must also accept that there are limits—sometimes insurmountable ones. The best doctors, the fastest ambulance, the most advanced equipment—none of it guarantees survival in the face of catastrophic clinical decline. Let us grieve with grace. Let us question, yes—but let us also listen. Let us seek accountability where it is due, but let us not be quick to indict when the science already foretold the outcome. Death is always hard. But blame, when misapplied, can make it even harder—and blur our understanding of what medicine can, and cannot, do.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

 

---

• blame, death, Glasgow Coma Scale, Grief, Peeping Tom

---