RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 12:02:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

We do know the sister died from the same disorder. Imagine the guilt that alone presses on parents to do "everything possible".

This, for instance, is a great example of an argument that would indeed have some heft in support of the idea that special cases could at least partially be made for family in situation where the degree of grief and emotional torment can be said to potentially be higher than normal.

Then again...who would dare step onto the minefield of trying to put a rating system on which horrible events are more painful than others if we even tried to look at it that way?
And that, somehow, is justification for putting the caregivers - the doctors, the nurses, those who are fighting for letting the child pass in peace - through emotional hell just because of their selfishness? Fuck that. I ain't buyin' it.



NihilusZero -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 12:17:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

And that, somehow, is justification for putting the caregivers - the doctors, the nurses, those who are fighting for letting the child pass in peace - through emotional hell just because of their selfishness? Fuck that. I ain't buyin' it.

I would personally agree with the hospital's decision, but we don't really have the place to enforce our personal moralities of their decisions onto them. Parents, legally, have the freedom to be nearly anything they want (selfish, or many other things) when it comes to their children because, short of more clear instances of abuse, children are considered property of the parents. You cannot trump the metaphysical/emotional wishes of the family of the patient with those of the caregivers...it's disproportionately ridiculous.

The only pertinent lingering question, again, is how far medical practitioners and hospitals should be required to include the emotional desires of family as part of what constitutes 'caring for a patient' (and I would suggest not very far at all, if at all).

And this surely isn't a question about whether one decision or another would impact the caregivers "emotionally" either; honestly, dealing with that is technically part of their job in the first place.



tazzygirl -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 12:23:46 AM)

I believe parents should be able to seek medical attention where ever they chose.

I believe Drs also have the right to refuse treatment based upon the best outcome for the patient.

If a parent and the Dr cannot come to an agreement, then the parent is free to seek medical attention elsewhere. No one is denying these parents that right.

What they are doing is saying that because the Drs would not be forced into doing something they felt was medically unnecessary, then the Drs are the bad guys.

The parents have rights. So does he medical community.



SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 12:31:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
I would personally agree with the hospital's decision, but we don't really have the place to enforce our personal moralities of their decisions onto them. Parents, legally, have the freedom to be nearly anything they want (selfish, or many other things) when it comes to their children because, short of more clear instances of abuse, children are considered property of the parents. You cannot trump the metaphysical/emotional wishes of the family of the patient with those of the caregivers...it's disproportionately ridiculous.

Actually, it can be done, via court order, sought by the hospital... And I don't mean in clear instances of abuse.
The parents can have their uhm transferred, but they cannot force any hospital or health professional to act against his/her better judgement, and perform, in this case, a surgery felt to be futile. M



NihilusZero -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 12:35:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
I would personally agree with the hospital's decision, but we don't really have the place to enforce our personal moralities of their decisions onto them. Parents, legally, have the freedom to be nearly anything they want (selfish, or many other things) when it comes to their children because, short of more clear instances of abuse, children are considered property of the parents. You cannot trump the metaphysical/emotional wishes of the family of the patient with those of the caregivers...it's disproportionately ridiculous.

Actually, it can be done, via court order, sought by the hospital... And I don't mean in clear instances of abuse.
The parents can have their uhm transferred, but they cannot force any hospital or health professional to act against his/her better judgement, and perform, in this case, a surgery felt to be futile. M

We're agreeing here.

What I was referring to was the idea that the emotional toil of the caregivers should somehow be a weight in the determination of whether something should or should not be done.

Also, I was making a point about how, should a parent see X as emotionally "important" for their child, it's ridiculous to try and argue the quality of that emotional element. Whether the hospital should foot the bill for it or be forced to go along is an entirely different point, and that should be determined by the clinical practicality of whether the procedure or thing or whatever actually goes to furthering the direct benefit of the patient.



SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 12:37:39 AM)

Oops! Thanks for clarifying. [:)] M



tweakabelle -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 12:52:06 AM)

I would like to know a lot more about the death of the other child here before I could begin to form a view about the parents. Did they bring this poor doomed infant into the world aware of the possibility of this re-occurring? Did they reject aborting the birth if they were aware of the likely outcome? The answers to questions like these could put different perspectives on the parent's behaviour and motives.

The behaviour of the self appointed moral knights in shining armour was IMHO disgustingly cynical and far and away the ugliest aspect of this tragedy. Outside the family (who can be forgiven for their less than 100% pure motives) everyone else seem to be trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. But the way these vultures set the whole circus up and exploited it for political gain was revolting, utterly devoid of morality, principle and compassion.

Just a thought:
It costs $25 to restore the sight in an eye blinded by glaucoma*. Many millions of ppl in the Third World are blind because of this preventable and reversible condition. I would hope that if I were in the parent's shoes, I would have the courage and moral strength to donate the $ to restoring sight. It might make the tragedy meaningful and endurable for me.


* http://www.hollows.org.au/Get_Involved/?gclid=CKf1pJOS2qcCFUmDpAodI3Im9g
No doubt there are thousands of similar charities that are equally deserviong.



DomKen -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 7:30:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I would like to know a lot more about the death of the other child here before I could begin to form a view about the parents. Did they bring this poor doomed infant into the world aware of the possibility of this re-occurring? Did they reject aborting the birth if they were aware of the likely outcome? The answers to questions like these could put different perspectives on the parent's behaviour and motives.

I can't find any report that says precisely what he has but it seems likely that it is a genetic condition. If a couple both carry a lethal recessive gene, the likely situation here, then every child they have has a 25% chance of getting the egen from both parents and therefore having the lethal disease.



Lucylastic -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 8:30:12 AM)

From the articles I have read, the only hospital in the US that would take him was the St Louis one, its not like we(canada) only consulted or have  one specialist and one hospital.
The right to life group has given these parents more hope than most couples get anywhere, they politicised it(look at the title of the thread)
They are doing the parents a disservice in my opinion



outhere69 -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 9:26:30 AM)

The first thing I wondered about was their fear of a painful death if the respirator was removed.  I know that at the Cleveland Clinic''s pediatric cardiothoracic unit, when parents make the decision to stop life support, sedatives and painkillers are given before all tubes are removed; the parents can then hold their child for the last time.

Any folks here from Texas?  Awhile back they passed a law that no hospital was obligated to provide long-term medical care to brain-dead patients.  The decision's made by an ethics board.  It seems family members were hoping for miraculous recoveries even when there was no hope.

No one recovers from brain death, and the infant in Canada was brain dead.  Spinal reflex responses to touch, etc. are often mistaken for brain activity.



rulemylife -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:00:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

This has nothing to do with the baby, and everything to do with politics.


Of course it does not, look at the title of the thread.







rulemylife -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:16:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Terrible tragedy, of course, but I fail to see the problem here. 



As I'm understanding it, Panda, this family was denied the final say in the care of their child, by their government. That just creeps me out a little, you know?


Even you admitted in your original post that our insurance companies do the same thing.

But that doesn't "creep" you out?

As usual, you are trying to play politics about an issue while pretending you are not.



TheHeretic -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:28:14 AM)

From what I'm reading on this, Lucy, the parents actually had to go to court to stop the decision to remove life support. Is that how it works, up your way? That would be very different from how we do it here. We get some ugly fights, and ugly cases, but when it comes to pulling the plug, it requires the consent of the next of kin.

Now sometimes that consent comes in the cruelest of ways, when the insurance stops paying, and people enduring tragedy are browbeaten into signing off, but they don't need to leave the country to go the heroic measures route on their own.

I can't think of a decision more personal and painful than what these parents are confronted with. Are you ok with the government having the right to strip them of that choice?



Lucylastic -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:30:03 AM)

Its a shame the right to life group dont focus on the thousands of babies/children/adults in the US who have a chance to live but for the fact they dont have the money or bankrupt themselves to provide less care than this poor child has had since he was born.
The sorrow of the parents has only been prolonged.The baby made it down there, is he going to make it back?
I feel for the parents being one myself, but this is causing more problems than its solving
added to add, death panels my arse



rulemylife -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:34:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

As it stands, its a fatal disease, one that took the life of his older sister. There is no point, except to assuage the parents guilt at the time of death that all was "done", to doing this.

Would you feel any less having to watch your child die?



Would you want your child to continue suffering with no hope of recovery?



tazzygirl -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:36:13 AM)

Im reading how the court case was to force the Drs to perform the trach.

The baby's parents, Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader, have been asking London doctors to perform a tracheotomy so they can take Joseph home to die. They had done so with their daughter Zina, who died nine years ago from a condition nearly identical to Joseph's.

But LHSC refused to perform the procedure, saying it's invasive and not part of palliative care. The hospital has vigorously defended its decision, saying the judgment was "sound, both medically and ethically."

An independent Ontario tribunal, the Consent and Capacity Board, and a Superior Court judge both sided with LHSC. But the case sparked an outcry from U.S. pro-life and anti-euthanasia groups, who quickly organized to get Joseph into an American hospital.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/baby-joseph-tracheotomy-20110314-170000-065.html



tazzygirl -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:37:49 AM)

quote:

Its a shame the right to life group dont focus on the thousands of babies/children/adults in the US who have a chance to live but for the fact they dont have the money or bankrupt themselves to provide less care than this poor child has had since he was born.


Helping a US child only shows how bad our system is.

Helping a canadian child shows how bad their system is.



Icarys -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:40:07 AM)

quote:

Would you want your child to continue suffering with no hope of recovery?

Trying to turn it around huh.

Nowhere does it say that the child is suffering. Go back to the drawing board buddy.



Lucylastic -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:41:12 AM)

This has gone thru multitude of doctors specialists and lawyers, only one hospital out of many  asked said they would and could do the procedure, this after how many months, how many thousands of dollars. without the "charity" they certainly would have buried the child months ago.
Realistically how many people get the chance to fly a relative who is terminal to another country for a procedure which gives life a few fractured hours to days





tazzygirl -> RE: Canadian Death Panel Thwarted (3/19/2011 10:42:04 AM)

The child is in a vegative state without the ability to control muscle movement.

How do you know he isnt suffering?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375