Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Baby Joseph, a sign of things to come?

Baby Joseph, a sign of things to come?
Thread Tools
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 04:48 PM
 
With all the talk of death panels in the US, here is a real life case in Canada.
Parents of Terminally Ill 'Baby Joseph' Battle Hospital to Keep Him Alive - AOL Health
Where would you draw the line? Should a line even be drawn? Ontarians, Does the board make similar decisions when someone in the later years of their life?
The parents of a 13-month-old baby who has a fatal neurological degenerative disease are fighting doctors in Canada for the right to keep him alive.

Moe and Nader Maraachli were told two weeks ago that their son, known as "Baby Joseph," could not be cured and would stay in his current vegetative state, ABC News reported. They were given a consent form allowing physicians to take the small boy off life support.

The devastated parents refused to sign it. And now they're battling the hospital for their son's survival.

The case highlights the ethical dilemma that health-care providers and parents of a terminally ill child often find themselves facing: How much time and money should be spent on keeping a child with a fatal disease alive?

Alex Schadenberg, the family spokesman and the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said they've only just wanted to bring Joseph home so that he can live his final days out there.

"They weren't asking for extraordinary medical treatment or for the government to pay for a ventilator with an in-home nurse," he told ABC.

The hospital where the child has been staying since October 2010, London Health Sciences Centre, says it sides with the Consent and Capacity Board on the proper course of treatment.

"It involves transferring him home, on a breathing machine, and then placing him the arms of his family before withdrawing the machine," the hospital said in a statement to ABC. "The transfer would not involve performing a tracheotomy, which ... is frequently indicated for patients who require a long-term breathing machine. This is not, unfortunately, the case with Baby Joseph, because he has a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is fatal."

The case has stirred considerable controversy and outrage among people in both Canada and the United States, with supporters of Baby Joseph's parents starting movements on Facebook to protest the medical community's actions. One of the groups, known as Save Baby Joseph, has more than 13,000 members, and another, Save Baby Joseph Maraachli, has over 1,300, ABC said.

Baby Joseph has also become something of a poster child for the fight against a government-funded health care system like Canada's, which has become a heated topic of debate after the far-reaching U.S. health care reform bill was passed in the fall.

In the end, the issue comes down to whether doctors or families have the right to choose whether to end a terminally ill child's life.

Dr. Sarah Friebert, a pediatric palliative care doctor in Akron Children's Hospital in Ohio, said health-care providers should do everything they can to honor the parents' requests, unless they're clearly not doing what is best for the child, according to ABC.

"The process involves bringing in other people to support the family with any sort of emotional, religious or spiritual issues that we need to understand better," Friebert said. "It often feels like an impossible choice because death is such a final option and parents are understandably going to try everything to avoid that."
Fr Frank Pavone has offered to help. YouTube - Baby Joseph - Fox News
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 04:55 PM
 
Yeah, how often does this happen in communist Canada?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 05:02 PM
 
I don't understand what the conflict actually is here. The hospital gave the family a form to consent to removing life support, but the family won't sign it.

The family's spokesperson says:

they've only just wanted to bring Joseph home so that he can live his final days out there.

"They weren't asking for extraordinary medical treatment or for the government to pay for a ventilator with an in-home nurse," he told ABC.
The bolded bit meaning, to me, that Joseph would be removed from life support.

The hospital's statement indicates something about transferring him home first and then removing life support.

It seems like both sides want him off of life support. What am I missing here? What is the actual disagreement? The article is not very informative.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 05:06 PM
 
"It involves transferring him home, on a breathing machine, and then placing him the arms of his family before withdrawing the machine." I do not think this is a reasonable request. It's just a waste of hospital resources.

"With all the talk of death panels in the US, here is a real life case in Canada." No it's not, there are no "death panels." Stop behaving like a loon.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 05:19 PM
 
I agree with SpaceMonkey. I'm not seeing why there is such a big conflict if both sided agree that life support should be removed.

OAW
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
"It involves transferring him home, on a breathing machine, and then placing him the arms of his family before withdrawing the machine." I do not think this is a reasonable request. It's just a waste of hospital resources.

"With all the talk of death panels in the US, here is a real life case in Canada." No it's not, there are no "death panels." Stop behaving like a loon.
Are you saying the Consent and Capacity Board did not make the recommendation to end care for baby Joseph? A decision was made to end care because in your words, "it's a waste in hospital resources." Does this board makes the same decision not to give a 70 year old a knee replacement because it's a wastes of knee implant? All that is required to take him home is a tracheotomy, which has been denied. This family had another child with the same condition and took her home after a tracheotomy was performed. a ventilator was not not required.
( Last edited by Chongo; Mar 2, 2011 at 07:15 PM. )
45/47
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Are you saying the Consent and Capacity Board did not make the recommendation to end care for baby Joseph?
Of course they did. Hospital boards make these recommendations every day. Every time someone's life support is cut off, it is done following a panel's procedures and recommendation, which the family must agree to. This happens every day in Canada, the US, and pretty much every industrialized nation on Earth.
A decision was made to end care because in your words, "it's a waste in hospital resources."
Are you illiterate? You must be, because that's not what I said. I said transferring the baby with life support equipment is a waste of resources; just cut life support in the hospital.

But that's just my opinion. The hospital has agreed to the transfer. But the parents also want a tracheotomy done, which will allow a change from one type of mobile life support system to another kind. But the hospital won't do it, because tracheotomies are for saving lives, not just moving babies around.

The parents claim the trach + different machine will ensure a less painful death once life support is cut off. The hospital disagrees, especially since the baby is in a vegetative state.

The parents and hospital are merely arguing about what kind of life support device will be cut off. There is no one claiming that life support will not be cut off. Both parents and hospital have agreed to let baby Joseph die. Ergo, this is not a "death panel" issue, this is not a "right to life" issue, or any other kind of right-wing buzzword situation.

Does this board makes the same decision not to give a 70 year old a knee replacement because it's a wastes of knee implant?
I don't know, and I think it's irrelevant to this story.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 08:54 PM
 
I agree that performing the tracheotomy would be wasteful in this scenario, but why can't the parents pay for this out of their own pocket and have it done per their wishes?
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 09:23 PM
 
^^^

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

OAW
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2011, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree that performing the tracheotomy would be wasteful in this scenario, but why can't the parents pay for this out of their own pocket and have it done per their wishes?
Is the family wanting to do that?
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree that performing the tracheotomy would be wasteful in this scenario, but why can't the parents pay for this out of their own pocket and have it done per their wishes?
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Is the family wanting to do that?
That is what was discussed here by Fr Frank Pavone.
YouTube
45/47
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 10:16 AM
 
The use of the term "death panel" here seems to be nothing more than sensationalism to spin this story for political gain. Both parties are agreed that the child will die; the differences here hinge around the where and the how. One party wants the child to die in the comfort of their home. The other says this would cause the child extra pain and suffering and be poor use of resources.

I don't know which side is right here (I understand the parents desires, but if it would indeed cause the child extra pain, I agree with the hospital). Regardless, this is not a Right to Life/Death Panel issue, depite the selfish desire of some groups to spin it as such.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That is what was discussed here by Fr Frank Pavone.
YouTube
Your link requires me to "sign in to YouTube," which I have no desire to do.

EDIT: a quick Google reveals Fr Pavone as "the Terri Shiavo priest," which immediately made me sick to my stomach.
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 11:43 AM
 
( Last edited by Chongo; Mar 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM. )
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The use of the term "death panel" here seems to be nothing more than sensationalism to spin this story for political gain.
Not only that, I see nothing to indicate this situation does or will happen all the time. Or what a capitalist insurance company would do here.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 12:26 PM
 
That video tells me nothing about this case. It's a puff piece aggrandizing the priest, not a presentation of facts. The only interesting thing I saw was the text scroll which said the hospital plans to sue for defamation.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 12:38 PM
 
Here's a sane new source presenting the actual facts about this situation: Baby Joseph's family no longer has Toronto lawyer - Windsor - CBC News
The hospital maintains a tracheotomy is an invasive procedure for patients who require a long-term breathing machine, and a judge has agreed. The parents have said they want the procedure done so they can spend more time with their child.

The boy is in a vegetative state, according to doctors, and has been in the care of the London Health Sciences Centre since October.
and
The family had wanted Baby Joseph transferred to the Children's Hospital of Michigan, but a spokesperson there said, "There is nothing [the hospital] has to offer Joseph that has not already been done for him in Ontario."

A spokesperson for Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children said a tracheotomy and ventilation would be "futile" for Baby Joseph.
Frankly, I think Fr Pavone is exploiting this family's suffering for his pro-life agenda.
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 05:34 PM
 
Let's play devil's advocate then. Since Baby Joseph has been deemed a "life unworthy of life" is this a case for euthanasia?
45/47
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 05:39 PM
 
Since Baby Joseph has been deemed a "life unworthy of life"
No one has said this.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 05:41 PM
 
The poor child is not long for this world, let him be.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 06:21 PM
 
Every time I see this thread I think it's announcing Jim Henson's New Testament Babies.

I want a Baby Barrabas!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Let's play devil's advocate then. Since Baby Joseph has been deemed a "life unworthy of life" is this a case for euthanasia?
What do the parents want done that will prolong the child's life?

I suspect you're confusing the facts with the agenda of the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network. The issue is not whether or not the child will die soon, but rather about where he will die.
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
What do the parents want done that will prolong the child's life?.
They want a tracheotomy done.
45/47
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
They want a tracheotomy done.
Yes. And that will save his life?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 10:48 PM
 
It's my friday, I'm lazy right now, and for whatever reason I prefer to read information than watch it anyway.

My point is if the family does not have the option to pay for the procedure in order that they might take the fruits of 22 months' investment in labor, life, and limb home to die; it is not only relevant, but a perfectly plausible sign of things to come. Overly-dramatic perhaps? Sure, but it's none of my business. You can replace overly-dramatic with agendized for all I care, doesn't matter.

Who knows, maybe they'll learn something new from it.
ebuddy
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2011, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Yes. And that will save his life?
You asked what the parents want done to prolong his life. The tracheotomy will prolong it not save it.
45/47
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You asked what the parents want done to prolong his life. The tracheotomy will prolong it not save it.
Right. And, how will the tracheotomy prolong his life? Even the the hospital in Michigan has said that they can't do anything that hasn't already been done for the child.

Personally, I would say do the tracheotomy. My issue here has nothing to do with that; if the parents want to have this surgery done so that they can have the comfort of their child dying in their home, despite their doctor's opinion that it will cause the child additional suffering, then so be it.

My issue here is in people trying to conflate this with right to life, death panels and "life unworthy of life". Some people seem to think that there is some sort of miracle cure that is being withheld.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's my friday, I'm lazy right now, and for whatever reason I prefer to read information than watch it anyway.

My point is if the family does not have the option to pay for the procedure in order that they might take the fruits of 22 months' investment in labor, life, and limb home to die;
This I agree with. Let them pay to have the surgery done (though, I wonder what would happen if they couldn't afford to pay for the surgery and couldn't convince the internet to donate the money?)

As in my previous statement, it just ticks me off that people are trying to spin this for political gain in an unrelated issue.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Every time I see this thread I think it's announcing Jim Henson's New Testament Babies.

I want a Baby Barrabas!
I think the phrase would actually be, "Give us Barrabas!"

Oops, sorry, continue with the thing about the family not being able to take the dying baby home with them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 08:01 AM
 
"Let the parents pay." This is Canada. If a child needs surgery, the child gets surgery. The hospital board and the legal system have determined that additional surgery is not appropriate. This decision was not based on money, but on what was considered best for the patient.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 09:39 AM
 
Finally, here's a Lifer who's being honest:

The case of baby Joseph started out fairly clear, but as time has passed many people have interpreted it as something it is not ...

Some people have suggested that to withdraw the ventilator from baby Joseph would constitute an act of euthanasia. This is not true ...

The issue is, who has the right to decide? Does the hospital and doctor, or does the family have the right to decide on how to care for their terminally ill child?

The Baby Joseph case affects us all | LifeSiteNews.com
I believe the family has the right to decide, unless it is deemed that the family's decision endanger or cause further pain for the child.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I believe the family has the right to decide, unless it is deemed that the family's decision endanger or cause further pain for the child.
This is Canada. The hospital board and the legal system have determined that additional surgery is not appropriate.

As I understand it, the child is in a PVS. In the US, this diagnosis is made based on clinical factors established by the American Academy of Neurology; factors that include the inability to interact with or experience their environment, feel pain, or communicate in any way. What the hospital board and the legal system in Canada have determined in this case is where the child should die based on systemic resource stewardship and does not consider the wishes of the parents.

i.e. it's about the money.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I think the phrase would actually be, "Give us Barrabas!"
Goddammit...

You're right.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is Canada. The hospital board and the legal system have determined that additional surgery is not appropriate.

As I understand it, the child is in a PVS. In the US, this diagnosis is made based on clinical factors established by the American Academy of Neurology; factors that include the inability to interact with or experience their environment, feel pain, or communicate in any way. What the hospital board and the legal system in Canada have determined in this case is where the child should die based on systemic resource stewardship and does not consider the wishes of the parents.

i.e. it's about the money.
Right. And, I'm not defending that. But, I am able to disagree with the hospitals decision here while also disagreeing with those who are trying to spin this into a euthanasia issue for political gain.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Right. And, I'm not defending that. But, I am able to disagree with the hospitals decision here while also disagreeing with those who are trying to spin this into a euthanasia issue for political gain.
Completely agree. It can't be a euthanasia issue unless the choice of life or death has been made by something other than nature which AFAIK, is not the case here.
ebuddy
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What the hospital board and the legal system in Canada have determined in this case is where the child should die based on systemic resource stewardship and does not consider the wishes of the parents.
Telling lies is a sin, ebuddy.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Telling lies is a sin, ebuddy.
You're proselytizing to the wrong one mckenna. Hacking a post out of context for the intellectually lazy hit and run indictment might not be sinful to the morally bankrupt, it is dishonest.
ebuddy
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're proselytizing to the wrong one mckenna. Hacking a post out of context for the intellectually lazy hit and run indictment might not be sinful to the morally bankrupt, it is dishonest.
I didn't hack anything out of context. You said what you said, and you know you made it up. No one is fooled.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
No one is fooled.
No one who read the first half of the paragraph you chopped explaining why this is nothing more than a cold, systemic calculation; I agree.
ebuddy
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2011, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No one who read the first half of the paragraph you chopped explaining why this is nothing more than a cold, systemic calculation; I agree.
The first half is irrelevant to your deliberate lie that "the hospital board and the legal system in Canada have determined in this case is where the child should die based on systemic resource stewardship," which is an utterly fabricated falsehood.

And hospitals cannot give parents everything they want, but only what is medically appropriate. They certainly don't made medical decisions based on the pointless demogoguery of activist priests.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2011, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The first half is irrelevant to your deliberate lie that "the hospital board and the legal system in Canada have determined in this case is where the child should die based on systemic resource stewardship," which is an utterly fabricated falsehood.

And hospitals cannot give parents everything they want, but only what is medically appropriate. They certainly don't made medical decisions based on the pointless demogoguery of activist priests.
The activist priest is obviously your hang-up here and is irrelevant with regard to the parents' wishes. You obviously have a problem comprehending the more succinct version of my opinion so I'll have to give you the long version.

A person in a PVS is unable to interact with or experience their environment, feel pain, or communicate in any way. The hospital board and the legal system in Canada have determined that enabling the child to die at home with his parents is not life-saving or medically necessary and is therefore inappropriate. If you have some evidence that there is more behind this, bring it.

Otherwise the hospital board and legal system, acting in stewardship over Canadian health care system resources, cannot afford to accommodate medically unnecessary requests and have declined the parents' wishes which makes perfect sense. However, if the parents do not have the option of saying; "screw you, we're paying to have the procedure done and our son will come home to die." then it is very much a plausible sign of things to come from any such similarly-designed system.

It's about the money. You don't need to take it personally mckenna, you didn't design the system.
ebuddy
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2011, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A person in a PVS is unable to interact with or experience their environment, feel pain, or communicate in any way. The hospital board and the legal system in Canada have determined that enabling the child to die at home with his parents is not life-saving or medically necessary and is therefore inappropriate. If you have some evidence that there is more behind this, bring it.
The hospital board has offered to bring the child home to die there. The parents want a slightly different machine because they believe the child's death will be painful with the one proposed by the hospital. Since this is impossible (due to PVS), the parent's request is a request for a medical procedure that is completely pointless.

However, if the parents do not have the option of saying; "screw you, we're paying to have the procedure done and our son will come home to die." then it is very much a plausible sign of things to come from any such similarly-designed system.
They do have an option: go to another hospital. They might still actually do that. But they have no legal basis to demand the current hospital do anything they wish, regardless of best medical practices. That's true for any hospital or doctor, private or public, in any system. No other hospital anywhere has commited to doing the parent's wishes, probably because they know it's a waste. That's why it's been almost half a year - no one thinks the trach is a good idea except the parents and some activists.

You can try to blame Canada's public health care system, but you're wrong to do so. This has nothing to do with your paranoid delusions about "socialism."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2011, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The hospital board has offered to bring the child home to die there. The parents want a slightly different machine because they believe the child's death will be painful with the one proposed by the hospital. Since this is impossible (due to PVS), the parent's request is a request for a medical procedure that is completely pointless.

They do have an option: go to another hospital. They might still actually do that. But they have no legal basis to demand the current hospital do anything they wish, regardless of best medical practices. That's true for any hospital or doctor, private or public, in any system. No other hospital anywhere has commited to doing the parent's wishes, probably because they know it's a waste. That's why it's been almost half a year - no one thinks the trach is a good idea except the parents and some activists.

You can try to blame Canada's public health care system, but you're wrong to do so. This has nothing to do with your paranoid delusions about "socialism."
I may owe you an apology as I thought the debate had been to remove the breathing apparatus at the hospital or perform the trach and transfer him home.

Per the ABC News Article:
The Maraachlis requested that doctors perform a tracheotomy, so that Baby Joseph's family could take him home and take care of him in his final days. While other babies in similar situations have been sent home with a breathing tube and ventilator through the Canadian health care system, Schadenberg said the family was not offered this option, and Joseph's parents did not know to ask.

The LHSC denies the above and claims they would be transferring the baby home on breathing apparatus to be removed at home. If the former account is the case, my analysis stands. If the latter account is the case, my analysis was incorrect and I apologize.

I've read nothing to suggest the parents had been given the option of going to another hospital in Canada for the procedure. You're the only one using the word "socialism". All I've done is express the fact that the spirit of the OP is correct in that any such system that does not allow for the option of paying for a procedure (without having to leave the country of course) because it is not deemed appropriate by a panel is in fact a sign of things to come.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2011, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I may owe you an apology as I thought the debate had been to remove the breathing apparatus at the hospital or perform the trach and transfer him home.
That was my understanding as well. I blame the misunderstanding on those trying to turn this into a Death Panel issue for flooding the newswaves with misinformation. The LHSC is probably simply too polite to engage in the kind of "American-style" "media onslaught" that CeCe Heil has proposed.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2011, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
That was my understanding as well. I blame the misunderstanding on those trying to turn this into a Death Panel issue for flooding the newswaves with misinformation. The LHSC is probably simply too polite to engage in the kind of "American-style" "media onslaught" that CeCe Heil has proposed.
In fairness it should be noted that another example was given in the article that shows a child that far-outlived the prognosis given. As I understand it this child received the trach and remains alive to this day. Quality of life? Sure it's likely dismal by my standards, but it's none of my business. It is stories like these that bolster hope in hopeless situations giving parents like these more resolve as they cling to any chance at all of a favorable outcome. (misguided or otherwise)

There is no expiration date stamped on people and patients often overcome unfavorable prognoses. While I would like to think as a loving parent in the same situation I'd have perhaps a little more sense, I cannot guarantee that emotions wouldn't be swirling and I too would cling to stories of insurmountable odds being overcome. I much prefer a health care system that allows for some "gut feeling" if nothing more than to learn something new from the experience, but a health care system given unto panels and boards cannot make allowances they deem inappropriate. To be clear, if I were paying into the system, I'd want it no other way as this is often my complaint with regard to waste in US Federal systems. I'd rather simply avoid that aspect of a health care system entirely. Otherwise, we will indeed be faced with the same scenarios.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2011, 02:01 PM
 
Sign of things to come? America already has it, in Texas no less and long before Obamacare.

Texas
Baby dies after hospital removes breathing tube | Page 1 | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.
New Jersey
New Jersey needs independent panel to resolve disputes over end-of-life care | NJ.com
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Mar 6, 2011 at 02:24 PM. )
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2011, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I may owe you an apology as I thought the debate had been to remove the breathing apparatus at the hospital or perform the trach and transfer him home.
No worries, dude. No one owes anyone an apology following a debate in the Debating Team, or here either.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2011, 02:41 PM
 
Baby Joseph has been transferred to an American hospital. That hospital has yet to determine what actions they will take.

That sniveling, lying @sshole Pavone said "Now that we have won the battle against the medical bureaucracy in Canada, the real work of saving baby Joseph can begin." Nothing was won, the family lost in court. And the family isn't trying to "save baby Joseph," since he's gonna die, the only issue is how it will happen. This lying twit should be defrocked.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2011, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Baby Joseph has been transferred to an American hospital. That hospital has yet to determine what actions they will take.

That sniveling, lying @sshole Pavone said "Now that we have won the battle against the medical bureaucracy in Canada, the real work of saving baby Joseph can begin." Nothing was won, the family lost in court. And the family isn't trying to "save baby Joseph," since he's gonna die, the only issue is how it will happen. This lying twit should be defrocked.
Not only that, but now he's likely to die farther from home. Also, I wonder if Priests for Life will foot the bill for anyone who can't afford such procedures?

In any case, in my opinion, they certainly have the right to have the child treated at a different hospital. What'll be interesting, and what most people will never hear, is what happens next to the child.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Mar 14, 2011 at 08:28 PM. )
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2011, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Frankly, I think Fr Pavone is exploiting this family's suffering for his pro-life agenda.
Is that any different than the Sarah Brady exploiting the Giffords shooting for her anti-2nd amendment agenda?
( Last edited by Chongo; Mar 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM. )
45/47
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,