canadian death panels, coming to US in HCR

Ice Dancer said:
So "media" implies more then one ...no?

The fact that the story may have been hyped for attention (apparently by many media outlets) does not a lie make~ Further the actual facts and timeline is on the facebook link I posted. The further facts remain as well...Canada has death panells
Click to expand...

Stating one is defying a court is a serious "mistake". The fact is no judge has ordered anything. They have simply given the hospital the right to bring the subject up with the parents and family.

Death panels or the right to relieve suffering? Does a child have to submit to suffering in order to pacify the parents?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and you think that this ruling eliminates the culpability of the judge? Or that the hospital being enabled to remove life support is defined as anything other than a death panel?

then here's my question. After these several days of questions and seekings by the hospital, it's determined that the hospital can remove the tube.....what happens? can the parents still stop it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the parents can stop it, however, I am reasonably sure the government will not permit the parents to subject the child to needless suffering.
 
apple0154 said:
Stating one is defying a court is a serious "mistake". The fact is no judge has ordered anything. They have simply given the hospital the right to bring the subject up with the parents and family.

Death panels or the right to relieve suffering? Does a child have to submit to suffering in order to pacify the parents?
Click to expand...

this is why i hate foreign law.

so let me get this straight. A hospital needs court permission to ASK parents to remove the tube? and if a parent refuses, then the hospital MUST leave the tube in?
 
apple0154 said:
I'm not sure if the parents can stop it, however, I am reasonably sure the government will not permit the parents to subject the child to needless suffering.
Click to expand...

then the subject teeters on that very pivotal point. If the parents cannot stop it and it is deemed by the state that removing the tube relieves suffering by way of death, how can that NOT be labeled a death panel?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how would being surrounded by family in the home you know, be stressful?
Click to expand...

I've found this opinion.

"Experts say even if the family is granted this request, caring for a child in this condition is an arduous task. Dr. David Casarett, director of research and evaluation at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wissahickon Hospice, says patients at home with tracheotomies need monitoring to make sure the airway is clear of secretions, the skin is clean and dry and someone can make sure the incision at the tracheotomy site does not get infected. “A child’s care would be much more complex if a home ventilator is required, since the parents would need to manage the ventilator with the help of a nurse and respiratory therapist,” he said."

Back in a bit. Time for a snack. :-)
 
cawacko said:
Unlike every other country (as apple always likes to say) we don't have a budget on health care so the U.S. essentially pays everything needed to keep someone alive. (60 Minutes did an excellent show on this which aired recently on CNBC). Will that stay the same as the new health care reform kicks in and gets up and running?
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the bill that would change that. The new health care bill is not a government takeover of health care. The same insurance providers, doctors and hospitals remain in place.

The only 'death panels' in America are the insurance corporations who are always looking for ways to deny coverage to patients and cancel their policies.

Why are so many citizens so unaware of who the executioners really are?
 
apple0154 said:
Stating one is defying a court is a serious "mistake". The fact is no judge has ordered anything. They have simply given the hospital the right to bring the subject up with the parents and family.

Death panels or the right to relieve suffering? Does a child have to submit to suffering in order to pacify the parents?
Click to expand...

There is no indication the child is suffering...What the parents want is to be able to bring their child home...allowing him to die surrounded by those he loves.

Death panels are barbaric~
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is why i hate foreign law.

so let me get this straight. A hospital needs court permission to ASK parents to remove the tube? and if a parent refuses, then the hospital MUST leave the tube in?
Click to expand...

The article states, "Instead, the decision by the Consent and Capacity Board and subsequent ruling by a London, Ont., judge enabled the hospital to seek consent to remove life-support, first by asking the parents, then other relatives and finally from The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, part of Ontario's ministry of the attorney general. Such a process typically takes days, not hours, and while a public trustee is legally required to follow the court ruling, he or she typically takes a few days to review the case before consenting to the removal of life-support, Handelman said."

As far as I can determine the hospital is given permission to remove the tube on condition the parents, other family members and The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee agree. If one disagrees there is further investigation.

I suppose the rationale is why have the hospital ask the parents to make the decision and then have to clear it by a Judge.

The point is not just the parents make the decision. In a way it's similar to the Terri Schiavo case. Because she had not left specific instructions the decision was not left solely to her husband. In this case the decision is not left solely to the parents.

Seems like a responsible way to deal with such matters, does it not?
 
apple0154 said:
The article states, "Instead, the decision by the Consent and Capacity Board and subsequent ruling by a London, Ont., judge enabled the hospital to seek consent to remove life-support, first by asking the parents, then other relatives and finally from The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, part of Ontario's ministry of the attorney general. Such a process typically takes days, not hours, and while a public trustee is legally required to follow the court ruling, he or she typically takes a few days to review the case before consenting to the removal of life-support, Handelman said."

As far as I can determine the hospital is given permission to remove the tube on condition the parents, other family members and The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee agree. If one disagrees there is further investigation.

I suppose the rationale is why have the hospital ask the parents to make the decision and then have to clear it by a Judge.

The point is not just the parents make the decision. In a way it's similar to the Terri Schiavo case. Because she had not left specific instructions the decision was not left solely to her husband. In this case the decision is not left solely to the parents.

Seems like a responsible way to deal with such matters, does it not?
Click to expand...

the order that you give leads me to believe that
1) if the parents say no, then the hospital can next ask grandparents or aunts and uncles
2) if grandparents then say no, then the Office of guardian and trustee branch get asked
3) so say the office says pull the tube, the hospital can then disregard the families wishes and pull the tube?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then the subject teeters on that very pivotal point. If the parents cannot stop it and it is deemed by the state that removing the tube relieves suffering by way of death, how can that NOT be labeled a death panel?
Click to expand...

Two points. First, governments get involved in children's lives in many ways. For example, abused children are removed from homes. The point is doing what is in the best interest of the child and suffering by prolonging death certainly qualifies for interference.

Second. There is no "panel". Every situation will involve a different Judge. Every situation will involve a different doctor/hospital. Every situation will involve different family members (parents, spouses, etc.)

Again, as in the case of Terry Schiavo would you consider she was subjected to a "death panel"?
 
apple0154 said:
Two points. First, governments get involved in children's lives in many ways. For example, abused children are removed from homes. The point is doing what is in the best interest of the child and suffering by prolonging death certainly qualifies for interference.
Click to expand...
well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. no state costume wearing character determines whats in the best interests of my child.

apple0154 said:
Second. There is no "panel". Every situation will involve a different Judge. Every situation will involve a different doctor/hospital. Every situation will involve different family members (parents, spouses, etc.)
Click to expand...
then in the interest of expedience, death panel will refer to either a government individual or group of government individuals that has some control over the life and death of a patient. sound good?

apple0154 said:
Again, as in the case of Terry Schiavo would you consider she was subjected to a "death panel"?
Click to expand...
no. the decision to withhold fluids was a direct decision of her spouse.
 
Bfgrn said:
There is nothing in the bill that would change that. The new health care bill is not a government takeover of health care. The same insurance providers, doctors and hospitals remain in place.

The only 'death panels' in America are the insurance corporations who are always looking for ways to deny coverage to patients and cancel their policies.

Why are so many citizens so unaware of who the executioners really are?
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Some folks don't understand universal health care or the single payer system. There isn't any government involvement in individual cases. The decisions are made by patients and doctors and, in rare cases, judges.

The government isn't similar to a health insurance company. The government decides which procedures are covered necessitating covering more procedures than any one insurance company is likely to cover as they have to cover every citizen. While one illness may be rare among a certain portion of the population it has to cover that illness for the entire population.

The decisions are made between the patient and the doctor and the government pays the bill. In a sense it's more similar to auto insurance. If one has an accident their automobile is fixed and their insurance pays. The company does not disqualify door panels on Chevys or front fenders on Fords. Regardless of the make of the car or where the damage is located the car is fixed. Ones auto insurance company does not discriminate between cars by declining certain repairs on certain models. The same principal applies to government medical and people.
 
Ice Dancer said:
There is no indication the child is suffering...What the parents want is to be able to bring their child home...allowing him to die surrounded by those he loves.

Death panels are barbaric~
Click to expand...

What's barbaric is insisting a child die at home without medical services being available.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the order that you give leads me to believe that
1) if the parents say no, then the hospital can next ask grandparents or aunts and uncles
2) if grandparents then say no, then the Office of guardian and trustee branch get asked
3) so say the office says pull the tube, the hospital can then disregard the families wishes and pull the tube?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the exact procedure. I think it's more along the lines that if no one disagrees then the procedure is implemented. If the parents disagree I don't think the grandparents wishes would override them. It would probably go to some kind of judicial review.

When my aunt was critically injured my brother and I were asked as we were the closest family members. The doctor explained the probable outcome and while we were aware of what the doctor intended to ask us the meeting took less than 15 minutes. We knew our aunt's wishes as she being a "woman's libber" long before it was fashionable we knew she wouldn't want to live in a home, incapacitated. Her life was freedom and independence. No way would we insist her last days on earth be a living hell.

I'll have to ask my doctor a few questions when I see him next time. Although I state in my will "no extraordinary measures" I want to be sure my wishes are clear.

As a side note when it comes to death panels perhaps our concern should be more focused on the right to die. Here's a touching story. Maybe one day we'll evolve to encompass the necessary compassion.
http://communities.canada.com/vanco...chooses-a-dignified-death-in-switzerland.aspx
 
Ice Dancer said:
Government death panels are barbaric~

The child would have the love; care; and experience of his parents...the hospital environment offers no benefit.
Click to expand...

One benefit the hospital offers is sedatives. If we assume the child is comatose then it will not be aware of it's surroundings. If we assume the child may recover what is going to happen if it does "wake up" considering it has a degenerative nerve disease? Will it be in extreme pain upon awakening? Will it have convulsions?

I think the question is, "With whose benefits are we concerned?
 
apple0154 said:
One benefit the hospital offers is sedatives. If we assume the child is comatose then it will not be aware of it's surroundings. If we assume the child may recover what is going to happen if it does "wake up" considering it has a degenerative nerve disease? Will it be in extreme pain upon awakening? Will it have convulsions?

I think the question is, "With whose benefits are we concerned?
Click to expand...

The doctors...you know those professionals-they have all said that there is no hope. The parents have already lost a child to this disease-I think they know and understand that for which they ask.
 
apple0154 said:
Ahhh, good, old, lying Fox news.

A Canadian family has not defied a court order. Here is the REAL news.

(Excerpt) While the media have widely reported that London, Ont., doctors were poised to remove a breathing tube from Joseph at 10 a.m. Monday — something expected to lead to death within minutes — Handelman said that isn't correct.

Instead, the decision by the Consent and Capacity Board and subsequent ruling by a London, Ont., judge enabled the hospital to seek consent to remove life-support, first by asking the parents, then other relatives and finally from The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, part of Ontario's ministry of the attorney general. Such a process typically takes days, not hours, and while a public trustee is legally required to follow the court ruling, he or she typically takes a few days to review the case before consenting to the removal of life-support, Handelman said. (End)
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/20/17348986.html

The ruling of the judge enables the hospital to seek consent to remove life-support.

In other words there is nothing for the family to defy.

Please, you've been told over and over, do not believe Fox. At best, they have no idea what they're talking about and, at worst, they're a bunch of disgusting, lying, shit-disturbing assholes. (Pardon the language.)

EDIT: My goodness! I continued reading the thread. It's soooo nice to see I'm thought of by so many.
Thanks, Folks! :-)
Click to expand...

Odd that the news in Canada would report the same thing!!

Judge orders baby off life-support

By JANE SIMS, QMI Agency
LONDON, Ont. - Moe Maraachli keeps the snapshots of his dying baby boy in an envelope in his jacket pocket.

He pulls out the photos of the son he's about to lose, trying to understand how a hospital, an Ontario health-related board assigned to judge consent issues, and a London, Ont., court could say he and his wife can't take their baby, Joseph, home to Windsor, Ont., to die.

"I do my best for my baby. I do my best," he said Thursday outside the London courthouse, tears in his eyes.

"This is killing, this is criminal ... I'm sure this is murder."

This Monday, on Family Day in Ontario, Joseph Maraachli, who's in a vegetative state from a neurodegenerative disease, will die after his breathing tube is removed from his tiny body at a London hospital, ending an ethical and legal dilemma that tried to balance unwanted suffering with the needs of a child and his family.

"I lose my baby," Maraachli, 37, who came to Canada from Lebanon 11 years ago, said. "They take him from me.


"I don't lose my baby like God take him. They take him. They want to take him."

"It was basically our family's word versus the medical system's world," said Joseph's aunt, Samar Nader, who's sure she saw Joseph respond to her this week when she touched his head.

"I think in medicine, they're just looking at the world from a black and white point of view.

"The family understands the child and for us to witness his death on Monday ... I don't know."

An emotional Superior Court Justice Helen Rady, who called it "heartbreaking" and "such a sad and difficult case," decided Thursday not to allow the family's appeal of a decision last month by Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board to have the child's breathing tube removed and put in place a do-not-resuscitate order and palliative care.

The baby's father and mother, Sana Nader, 35, wanted the same treatment for Joseph as was given to their daughter before she died, eight years ago at 18 months -- give Joseph a tracheotomy and ventilation, and allow them to take him home to die what would be a peaceful death.

But Joseph's doctors say while a tracheotomy -- an incision is made in a patient's airway, to help breathing -- may prolong the baby's life, it's futile in this case and would likely cause much discomfort. It would certainly also increase the risk of infection and pneumonia, they argue.

"The medical officials would not want this little boy to suffer," Rady said.

When born in January 2010, Joseph, now 13 months, was a beautiful, normal baby.

But five months later he started having seizures like his sister. By June, he couldn't swallow.

In October, he stopped breathing while travelling with his parents. He was taken to an Ingersoll, Ont., hospital, then rushed to the London Health Sciences Centre's pediatric critical care unit where he's been ever since.

His father has stayed in London, Ont., to be with his son.

His mother is in London, Ont., every weekend and returns to Windsor, Ont., to look after the couple's other son, Ali.

Joseph's on a ventilator and fed through a tube. He's in what the doctors call "a persistent vegetative state." The doctors say he's blind and deaf. He's missing all five brain stem reflexes considered necessary for life -- gag, cough, eye movement, pupil and cornea responses. His brain deterioration is irreversible.

A team of doctors, including a world-renowned pediatric expert from Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, has examined Joseph and agrees he's dying of the same progressive neurodegenerative disease that claimed his sister.

Joseph's doctor told the adjudication board that doctors "reluctantly" gave the couple's daughter a tracheotomy. Since then, doctors have learned "substantially" more about the procedure and determined it isn't right for Joseph.

The board agreed with Joseph's attending doctor that the baby has "no hope or chance of ever recovering."

"While we feel a great deal of empathy for the parents, we held that their view was not in any way realistic," the board said, adding Joseph's parents "were blinded by their obvious love" for their child.

His parents fear Joseph will choke to death once the tube is removed. They say he responds to their touch and wanted the board to see him in hospital before deciding.

Rady said it's unclear what the board would have seen had its members agreed. And she noted that while Joseph's head and body have grown, it doesn't mean the medical assessments are wrong.

The case digs deeply into the delicate balance of life vs. suffering.

Ethicist Margaret Somerville of McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law said the case is "a judgment where the parents are giving priority to the prolongation of life and the doctor is giving priority to the quality of that life."

"I'm sure there's no doubt in this case that this child has a very poor quality of life, but we do know that health-care professionals judge quality of life much lower than people themselves do."

Somerville said such quality-of-life decisions are delicate and often at odds. What needs to be examined is why the family doesn't agree with the decision and if their reasons are acceptable, she said.

The board had ordered Joseph's breathing tube be removed Friday, but Rady said that wasn't sensitive to the family's need.

Instead, she ordered they comply by Monday -- a statutory holiday in Ontario, to celebrate family -- "to afford the whole family adequate time to say their good-byes."

Rady's voice broke when she addressed the family. "I hope that in time you'll find peace," she said.

Joseph's father wasn't satisfied. "It's not help," he said later.

His lawyer, Geoff Snow, said he understands Rady's decision but added, "the loss of a child in any circumstances is tragic and it's unfortunate that there's not more that could have been done."

Lawyer Julie Zamprogna Balles, who acted for the doctor, said Rady's decision was "well-reasoned and compassionate."

While the case had "very sad and unfortunate circumstances," everyone involved, she said, have "focused on little Joseph's best interests."

But a grieving Moe Maraachli said there's "no humanity" in Canada. He expressed a desire to die himself.

"I stay with him until the last moments and hopefully I go with him," he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top