canadian death panels, coming to US in HCR

USFREEDOM911 said:
Odd that the news in Canada would report the same thing!!

Judge orders baby off life-support

By JANE SIMS, QMI Agency
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.
Click to expand...


ok apple, i see this as a death panel by one judge. can you refute that?
 
apple0154 said:
Would you prefer a spouse have sole authority over another person's death rather than a panel of qualified doctors?
Click to expand...
I would definitely prefer that. I even defended Michael Schiavo on that front. I want my wife to be able to make that decision rather than have it taken from her by some faceless entity who knows nothing of my wishes.
 
Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if there is no hope who benefits from the child having a tracheotomy? Certainly not the child and that's what this is all about or should be.
 
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...

here is where "smarter"thanyou acknowledges being pwned... attempts to baitnswitch
 
so easy to let the fingers go on a keyboard when ur mind is already made up...... impossible to be objective...... show me a case where the evil canadian stormtroopers of healthcare forced a mother and father to KILL their child and u'll find out that the "facts on the ground" r nite and day..... its inherently human to manipulate something when it doesnt fall n line with ur entrained views
 
apple0154 said:
Death panel by one judge? The hospital had applied to the judge meaning the doctors and the hospital all believe it's in the best interest of the child.
Click to expand...
Best interest of the child, or best interest of the hospital and/or state who is footing the bill for the child's continued treatment? A judge can, and apparently has, ordered the termination of treatment AGAINST THE PARENTS WISHES, and you are FINE with that? You think the parents of the child have less interest in their own child's well being than a panel of death dealing doctors and their pet judges? What kind of hopelessly mindless big government fan are you?
 
apple0154 said:
Death panel by one judge? The hospital had applied to the judge meaning the doctors and the hospital all believe it's in the best interest of the child.
Click to expand...

which, in essence, means that the state has taken over the medical care of patients. it's no longer in the hands of parents. Thus, government managed health care leads to death panels.
 
Good Luck said:
Best interest of the child, or best interest of the hospital and/or state who is footing the bill for the child's continued treatment? A judge can, and apparently has, ordered the termination of treatment AGAINST THE PARENTS WISHES, and you are FINE with that? You think the parents of the child have less interest in their own child's well being than a panel of death dealing doctors and their pet judges? What kind of hopelessly mindless big government fan are you?
Click to expand...

In such emotional situations parents may not be thinking logical.

If you think doctors or the government want patients to die you should read the following.

(Excerpt) On 30 September 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its long-awaited judgment in the Sue Rodriguez case.

Sue Rodriguez, a 42-year-old woman suffering from the debilitating, terminal illness, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, wishes to have a qualified physician assist her in terminating her life at the time of her choosing. Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, however, makes it a criminal offence to assist a person to commit suicide. Ms. Rodriguez applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order declaring s. 241(b) invalid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"). The B.C. court dismissed her application and a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s decision. Ms. Rodriguez then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where she argued that s. 241(b) violates sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and found s. 241(b) to be constitutional. This paper summarizes the majority and dissenting opinions rendered by the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.(2)

Before conducting this analysis, however, the majority noted that all values protected by s. 7, including the sanctity of life, must figure in a determination of the principles of fundamental justice. (End)
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp349-e.htm

The sanctity of life. That oh-so-lofty ideal results in demanding a person suffer against their will. Sort of perverse, don't you think?

The point being in both cases (the child and Mrs. Rodriguez) one can be assured the government would and did insist on a person living even if that person suffers against their will so the idea of death panels is nonsense.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
there doesn't have to be any evidence. that's what the institute of marriage is all about. it's a private partnership, not a public spectacle
Click to expand...

I suppose in the perfect world you'd have a point but we all know how marital discord and insurance money can play a big part.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
which, in essence, means that the state has taken over the medical care of patients. it's no longer in the hands of parents. Thus, government managed health care leads to death panels.
Click to expand...

Check msg 52. If anything, the government won't let one die! Of course, that's the general policy in most countries but it's changing. Here's a recent story. http://communities.canada.com/share...chooses-a-dignified-death-in-switzerland.aspx

The evidence shows the government insists one live regardless of the suffering. On the plus side there are doctors who are more compassionate when it comes to giving adequate pain treatment even if it does shorten life span.

Times are changing.
 
apple0154 said:
In such emotional situations parents may not be thinking logical.

If you think doctors or the government want patients to die you should read the following.

(Excerpt) On 30 September 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its long-awaited judgment in the Sue Rodriguez case.

Sue Rodriguez, a 42-year-old woman suffering from the debilitating, terminal illness, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, wishes to have a qualified physician assist her in terminating her life at the time of her choosing. Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, however, makes it a criminal offence to assist a person to commit suicide. Ms. Rodriguez applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order declaring s. 241(b) invalid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"). The B.C. court dismissed her application and a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s decision. Ms. Rodriguez then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where she argued that s. 241(b) violates sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and found s. 241(b) to be constitutional. This paper summarizes the majority and dissenting opinions rendered by the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.(2)

Before conducting this analysis, however, the majority noted that all values protected by s. 7, including the sanctity of life, must figure in a determination of the principles of fundamental justice. (End)
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp349-e.htm

The sanctity of life. That oh-so-lofty ideal results in demanding a person suffer against their will. Sort of perverse, don't you think?

The point being in both cases (the child and Mrs. Rodriguez) one can be assured the government would and did insist on a person living even if that person suffers against their will so the idea of death panels is nonsense.
Click to expand...

all you're pointing out here is that the courts will uphold a law. If a legislature dictates that a panel can decide life or death, that 'sanctity of life' takes on a new meaning, as it has done in the case in the OP.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then i guess people shouldn't get married willy nilly, eh?
Click to expand...

That brings up an interesting point. Considering most people date for a year or two before marriage and most marriages are happy for at least the first few years one would have to date for many years before considering marriage.
 
apple0154 said:
That brings up an interesting point. Considering most people date for a year or two before marriage and most marriages are happy for at least the first few years one would have to date for many years before considering marriage.
Click to expand...

or wait til their a mature adult, like I did. I didn't get married til I turned 30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top