twa Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Euthanasia is not legal in Canada Now to make this matter simple you have advanced medical directives on how much life saving efforts one does in the event you can not speaks The child's parents obviously have that power over a minor....isn't this really a fight over what care should be given? The hospital wishes to determine which procedure is proper or ethical add Once you agree to advanced medical,do you give up control over the minor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Now to make this matter simple you have advanced medical directives on how much life saving efforts one does in the event you can not speaksSimple??? Terry Schaivo could not speak, and had no advanced directive. Her "husband" who had moved on with another woman and had children, yet still had guardianship. He then testified that she would have wanted to die, but he had balked 7 years earlier when presented with a chance to "pull the plug". Is all this simple? Now think about a panel deciding the fate of thousands of people a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Simple??? Terry Schaivo could not speak, and had no advanced directive. Her "husband" who had moved on with another woman and had children, yet still had guardianship. He then testified that she would have wanted to die, but he had balked 7 years earlier when presented with a chance to "pull the plug". Is all this simple? Now think about a panel deciding the fate of thousands of people a day. Well you have those counselling sessions if you want, you know the ones people complained about? A husband or a wife can make the decision but hey that is just me and my whole bible beliefs regarding marriage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 first to the op, sorry for your loss. this entire discussion is difficult, no matter the side- especially when a child is involved. I have a related story, 6 yrs ago my sister was 6 1/2 months pregnant when she found out the baby had anacephalic disease, where the brain does not develop. No one ever lives, most are stillborn, although some do live for minutes, hours or days. My sister is also a labor and delivery nurse for many years, so she is very well educated in that aspect of childbirth. She chose to be induced, and had my niece early. On purpose, knowing she would never survive. Now, is that euthanasia? Is that a right to die type of issue? Her death certificate says "abortion." If we can choose to end a baby's life, why can't we chose when/how to end our own, or our childs life? and no matter how you spin it- this is a death panel. Some may not like the truth- and you can say, "its a panel of medical experts..blah blah blah.." its a freakin death panel. Let the parents do what they wish. Those liberals in the US who are so bent on abortion rights, the right of the woman...how about the rights of these parents? Why are you not standing up for them to be able to decide how their son dies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 and no matter how you spin it- this is a death panel. Some may not like the truth- and you can say, "its a panel of medical experts..blah blah blah.." its a freakin death panel. Let the parents do what they wish. Those liberals in the US who are so bent on abortion rights, the right of the woman...how about the rights of these parents? Why are you not standing up for them to be able to decide how their son dies? The article says the Canadian authorities did not order the hospital to remove the breathing tube. Rather, they denied coverage for the tracheotomy. How is that a death panel? In any case, setting aside the political aspect of this story, it's just tragic. And, Popeman, I'm really sorry for your loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Good to see this child is being kept and alive to suffer for the benefit of others LONDON, Ont. - Some American right-to-lifers are distorting Ontario's Baby Joseph saga to raise funds for their own cause, sweeping facts that don't fit their political agenda into the dustpan in an all-out effort to defeat health reform south of our border. "It's political. It's related to fundraising goals," said Tom Malloy, Texas lawyer who helped draft a law there that gave hospital ethic boards -- not parents -- the final say on removing life support from children for whom medical care is deemed futile. Malloy has been a member on five of those ethics boards, some of which have ended the life of a patient, even children, over the family's objections. But you won't hear of those Texas decisions in the rhetoric of American evangelicals who have tried to make 14-month-old Joseph Maraachli a poster child for all they fear in heath-care reform. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, intervened in the Joseph case this month, announcing it would find care for Joseph at an American hospital. He has since been moved to one in St. Louis, MO. At the time of the announcement, the ACLJ 's Cece Heil painted a picture of good and evil: In the U.S., parents always have the final say when it comes to life support for their children so American hospitals had to rescue Joseph from the bureaucratic grips of socialized medicine in Canada. "I can't imagine a hospital telling me when and how my child will die. It's really unconscionable," Heil told QMI Agency. "It may have brought to light what we might expect under Obamacare." Malloy said Heil's message is just the sort that loosens the purse strings of Americans who have long been bombarded by doomsday visions of health-care reform. After all, opponents of public health care have convinced many Americans that reform will create bureaucratic death panels -- something that can't be found in any provision of heath-care reform passed a year ago and signed into law by U.S. President Barack Obama. But that evangelical message is built upon falsehoods, he said. Children and adults are removed from life support over family objections in American hospitals and there have been a number of publicized cases across the country, Malloy said. Among American states, the law in Texas gives hospitals the most power in end-of-life cases. Once a hospital ethics committee makes its decision, there can be no appeal to the courts or government agencies, only a 10-day period in which the family can try to find another hospital that will agree to provide life support. That Texas law was enacted under the signature of a governor who would go on to be an American president and darling of evangelicals, George W. Bush. "(These cases) have happened for years and they have nothing to do with Obamacare," Malloy said. That's also the view of a lawyer who's viewed as perhaps the leading American academic on end-of-life decisions, Thaddeus Pope. "It's just wrong." he said of evangelical claims. "The idea it never happens in the U.S.-- it happens all the time." Most states have laws that permit doctors to refuse demands for further treatment and give those doctors legal immunity for refusing. The Texas law, passed in 1999, was supported then by right-to-life groups who thought the 10-day provision would serve as a safety valve -- a belief that proved wrong. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/22/17708861.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Good to see this child is being kept and alive to suffer for the benefit of othersThe child will die. Sorry it's not soon enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 The child will die. Sorry it's not soon enough for you. Sorry I am not one of those folks who believe that one should not be kept alive to suffer so others can benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I wonder if the Texas panel would approve the simple procedure of a trach?...Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 this was not intended to devolve into a euthanasia debate, or obamacare debate, or a religious debate. Please attempt to refrain from getting on that train. Thanks you. Can you people not read? Or is comprehension the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Can you people not read? Or is comprehension the issue? Then why post this in in your OP? The whole "death panel" BS from the healthcare debate aside, this is what happens when the government controls healthcare. A board got together and decided that treatment should stop. If that is not the definition of a death panel, what is? They decided for this boy's family that it is time for him to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Pope, I have two young children and I just wanted to tell you that my eyes welled up at work. I'm so sorry for what you've had to experience. You're much stronger than I can ever hope to be. As for the topic, I'm going to sit this one out. The family is in my prayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 So the bottom line is when government is in control, patients aka people become numbers and stats. Thank God that doesn't happen with private corporations. My insurance provider is my BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 Then why post this in in your OP?Quote the whole thing, don't cherry pick: I know, I am too emotionally attached to decisions like this and can't turn an unbiased eye to this. The whole "death panel" BS from the healthcare debate aside, this is what happens when the government controls healthcare. A board got together and decided that treatment should stop. If that is not the definition of a death panel, what is? They decided for this boy's family that it is time for him to die.I admitted that I was too biased to be objective based on my personal experience. Then, after seeing where this thread was headed based on the succeeding posts, I asked that it not be turned into a death panel/euthanasia debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Speaking from personal experience parents sometimes have a hard time accepting things, when I had cancer and things were not looking good it was a fight to get my wishes accepted when it came to things like what was to happen to my body if I died or what measures would be used to keep me "alive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Simple??? Terry Schaivo could not speak, and had no advanced directive. Her "husband" who had moved on with another woman and had children, yet still had guardianship. He then testified that she would have wanted to die, but he had balked 7 years earlier when presented with a chance to "pull the plug". Is all this simple? Now think about a panel deciding the fate of thousands of people a day. ...and no matter how you spin it- this is a death panel. Some may not like the truth- and you can say, "its a panel of medical experts..blah blah blah.." its a freakin death panel. Let the parents do what they wish. Those liberals in the US who are so bent on abortion rights, the right of the woman...how about the rights of these parents? Why are you not standing up for them to be able to decide how their son dies? Both of you couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried. First, as has been widely discussed, death panels were never a part of the health reform legislation. Therefore that whole line of discussion has no merit. Please feel free to post a link to the wording in the actual document to prove me wrong though. Good luck with that. However even if I were to accept your equating this case to the "death panel" nonsense, it still doesn't hold water. As has been alluded to earlier, if refusal to pay for care or withdrawing care amounts to "death panels" then we've had them in this country for years. These "death panels" are called insurance companies and physicians. Last time I checked, insurance companies refuse to pay for lifesaving procedures (among others) all the time. Why? Because they have evidence based data that says it's futile or ineffective care. Likewise physicians and ethics panels in hospitals frequently recommend withdrawing care for the same reason. And yet I haven't heard anyone bleating about insurance company "death panels" or clamoring to force the insurance companies to pay for futile care. So what, does Jesus only mandate support for life at all costs when Medicare is paying the tab? Whether the decision comes from a private or public payer, if the healthcare team makes an evidence based decision that care is futile or ineffective, then withdrawing care is the right decision. Period. To do otherwise only serves to prolong suffering of the patient. Ultimately this is an issue of medical ethics. The physician and other healthcare providers have a duty to do what's best for the patient...not necessarily for the parents and certainly not for the sick political gamesmanship of right to life groups that interestingly can't see the contradiction in their positions. So they support a physician's right to refuse to provide abortions based on conscience and yet they want to characterize that same conscience-based refusal to prolong suffering as unethical or as a "death panel". Likewise they claim a religious basis for continuing futile end of life care while at the same time there are some that want the right to deny their children life saving procedures based on those same religious reasons. And when the courts reverse their decision to rely on faith healing to save their child's life, I'm sure they then say the courts are fascist or communist. I'm sorry but it appears to me that the right to life crowd simply wants to have their philosophical cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The whole death panel thing is absurd as it relates to Obama care. There are some parts of the bill that I don't like at all, but I hate when politicians try to distort legislation to increase opposition. There are plenty of intellectually honest ways to oppose the bill. I think at some point, there needs to be a better public discussion regarding the idea of what types of procedures that Medicare shouldn’t cover, but I have my doubts about whether there can be a rational discussion on the issue. In relation to the specific issue brought up in this thread, in my position in the mental health field I don’t have to make decisions regarding when a person should die. However, if parents were demanding a treatment that I thought would increase the suffering of a child, while not providing any benefit to the child, I would refuse. I don’t really care about the funding source. If my professional judgment was that there was no benefit and there was a possibility of harm, I wouldn’t do it. I respect the rights that parents have regarding their children, and I empathize with these parents, but you can't make a doctor do something that breaks the Hippocratic oath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I was thinking about exactly that point last night, right now in Canada there is a debate going about euthanasia and one arguement against it that is used is what happens if the doctor does not want to perform it. I think when giving treatment to prolong life or end life that more than the patient or their family should have a say since the person who orders or administers treatment also has to live with what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Whether the decision comes from a private or public payer, if the healthcare team makes an evidence based decision that care is futile or ineffective, then withdrawing care is the right decision. Period. To do otherwise only serves to prolong suffering of the patient.Ultimately this is an issue of medical ethics. The physician and other healthcare providers have a duty to do what's best for the patient...not necessarily for the parents and certainly not for the sick political gamesmanship of right to life groups that interestingly can't see the contradiction in their positions. So basically "advanced directives" should be eliminated and consulting next of kin is a waste of time. You're in favor of panels (I'll remove the word death), I am not. I find it disturbing that anyone who thinks that a relative's difficult decision to pull the plug is solely "sick political gamesmanship" that "prolongs suffering". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 No the political gamemanship comes from the politicians and the people who get their nose in and use such cases to raise money and then spend money and time trying to make political landscape resemble what they want. Medical directives are a good idea but at what point should I be allowed to hold a hospital bed and take up resources when I have no hope of recovery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 So basically "advanced directives" should be eliminated and consulting next of kin is a waste of time. You're in favor of panels (I'll remove the word death), I am not. I find it disturbing that anyone who thinks that a relative's difficult decision to pull the plug is solely "sick political gamesmanship" that "prolongs suffering". Reading really is fundamental. Try it sometime. That part of my comments clearly referred to the right to life groups. I find their use of a child's suffering for their benefit sickening. Lastly, nothing I said precludes advance directives or family input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I was at this hospital the last couple of weeks as this is one of the hospitals I go to for follow up care for one of my cancers and this who situation took it's toll on many of the care givers there, it is a tricky situation between balancing the need of the parents and what a doctor feels is in the best interest of the patient and their own conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Reading really is fundamental. Try it sometime. That part of my comments clearly referred to the right to life groups. I find their use of a child's suffering for their benefit sickening.Lastly, nothing I said precludes advance directives or family input. ? Your 2 sentences contradict each other. Either the family is in charge or it's not. I doubt emotional "input" is going to count for much when the "panel" is making a medical decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Considering that other hospitals in other countries, courts a lot of people were consulted and all agreed that what they parents were asking for was not for the benefit of the child but for themsleves. And the doctors do matter in this case since if they feel they are harming the child they should have the right to refuse to do harm to a patient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.