On this blog, Professor Thaddeus Pope tracks judicial, legislative, policy, and academic developments concerning medical futility and the limits on individual autonomy at the end of life.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Irvin Madrid - Hospital Unilaterally Disconnects Ventilator

Irvin Madrid had been in a persistent vegetative state for 17 months, since February 2010.  By late June 2011, providers at the Nebraska Medical Center unanimously decided that it was best to take him off life support.  But Irvin's father, Alfonso, disagreed and refused permission.  

NMC then obtained an independent medical assessment.  That physician agreed there is "no chance for recovery" and that withdrawal was appropriate.  The family then tried to transfer Irvin, but could find no willing facility, perhaps because he was uninsured.  The hospital ethics committee then approved the withdrawal decision.  After eventually reaching Alfonso to notify him of the decision, NMC disconnected the ventilator on July 12, 2011.  (Omaha World Herald 1; Omaha World Herald 2).

I cannot tell from the reports, but trust that NMC did all this in a compassionate manner.  I commend NMC for having the courage that many other hospitals lack in these circumstances to provide appropriate medicine.  While the hospital may have to deal with some negative press, its decision may have been facilitated by the fact that it appears there is little risk of liability or even litigation.  Nev. Rev. Stat. 30-3423 provides: "No attending physician or health care provider acting or declining to act in reliance upon the decision made by a person whom the attending physician or health care provider in good faith believes is the attorney in fact for health care shall be subject to criminal prosecution, civil liability, or professional disciplinary action."

3 comments:

Ronn said...

"...the decision made by a person whom the attending physician or health care provider in good faith believes is the attorney in fact for health care"

Does this mean the father agreed to the extubation or that some other family member requested the withdrawal and was recognized as the patient's surrogate/attorney in fact?

Ronn said...

Regarding standard of care implications, I wonder if the ethics committee would have decided to remove the feeding tube if this patient was like more typical long-term PVS patients; that is, non-dependent on mechanical ventilation.

Thaddeus Mason Pope, J.D., Ph.D. said...

I too would like to know some of these details to better understand the case. My understanding is limited to the facts as reported by the local newspaper. Since the providers are probably unable to share any information, the only real source would be the reporter.