Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Denied Request for Hospital Transfer

Zyphlin said:

It also apparently mattered to the doctors, that didn't feel right in performing surgery that was in their medical opinion unncessary.

Thoguh I think kori was speaking about "matters" in the larger scope of things in that the child was going to die within the relatively near future regardless if it was at home or in the hospital.

Click to expand...

I agree. it's hard to get physicians to do thinks that would violate the body but do nothing to save the life already gone.

Erod said:

FoxNews.com - Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Denied Request for Hospital Transfer

So with nationalized healthcare, a judge gets to make the decisions about the medical care for your children.

Hmmm. I think I'll pass. Kinda sounds like one of those "death panels".

Click to expand...

So just so I am clear, does that mean you want your tax dollars to go towards paying for a child to remain on life support because the parents won't take them off even when it is clear that the child won't recover?

CriticalThought said:

So just so I am clear, does that mean you want your tax dollars to go towards paying for a child to remain on life support because the parents won't take them off even when it is clear that the child won't recover?

Click to expand...

Tax dollars? No, I'm not among the government healthcare crowd.

More importantly, I'm not for the state having any say in the medical decisions of parents whatsoever. That's what bothers me about this.

Erod said:

Tax dollars? No, I'm not among the government healthcare crowd.

More importantly, I'm not for the state having any say in the medical decisions of parents whatsoever. That's what bothers me about this.

Click to expand...

The doctors made the medical decision. The court backed them.

Erod said:

Tax dollars? No, I'm not among the government healthcare crowd.

More importantly, I'm not for the state having any say in the medical decisions of parents whatsoever. That's what bothers me about this.

Click to expand...

Of course. It had noting to do with "socialized healthcare death panels" or the like, eh. :roll:

Erod said:

Tax dollars? No, I'm not among the government healthcare crowd.

More importantly, I'm not for the state having any say in the medical decisions of parents whatsoever. That's what bothers me about this.

Click to expand...

So who then would pay for the child to remain on life support?

CriticalThought said:

So who then would pay for the child to remain on life support?

Click to expand...

We would. Just ad hock, and through higher prices and with no method to show how much more than was needed we paid. We like paying more, we just don't want to know how much more, or have any controls on how much extra we can be charged. :coffeepap

upsideguy said:

Let's face it, as a conservative, you just prefer your death panels be privatized knowing that someone makes a profit on your demise...

Insurance company viciously denies lifesaving drug to cancer patient

(just one easy link.... hundreds more where that came from...)

Click to expand...

I removed the link in the quote, because I think that may be what's throwing my comments into the moderation queue. Upsideguy, I'm pretty sure you didn't actually read the post on my blog that you linked to, because it establishes the exact opposite of your point (emphasis added):

For years, Paula Oertel’s insurance company paid for an expensive drug which kept her in remission. But her move to another county triggered a review of her policy, and they suddenly stopped paying for the drug. Now she is estimated to have less than five months to live, all because her insurance company puts profits before people.

Oh, wait, did I say insurance company? I meant Medicare.

Click to expand...

The fact is that health care is always rationed. It's rationed by providers who have this nasty habit of wanting pay for their products and services (just like you and I expect to be paid for our products and services), or else when you have a third-party payer, it's rationed by the terms of the contract, or else when it's the government, it's rationed by the fact that eventually you run out of other people's money.

The question is, who do we trust to ration it, and against whom do we have the most leverage? Some nameless bureaucrat decides what's cost-effective and bam! there goes your health care. It happens in the private sector, like when hospitals patient-dump as they did with Dontae Adams. Or when Blue Cross Blue Shield & St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital wanted to get rid of Andrea Clark, a particularly expensive patient, and were pressured by the public into helping her family find another alternative for her care. The public has at least a little leverage when a for-profit company either has to abide by the legal terms of a contract or is worried about taking a PR hit. When it's the government, there's a lot less leverage because those bureaucrats know they almost certainly will not be fired, and that their budgets are going nowhere but up. There are thousands of examples of the NHS denying care; the government-run health care over there is sufficiently bad that this year they started moving back into a care-delivery model more like ours, where doctors, and not bureaucrats, are in control instead of a central government agency.

Erod said:

FoxNews.com - Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Denied Request for Hospital Transfer




So with nationalized healthcare, a judge gets to make the decisions about the medical care for your children.

Hmmm. I think I'll pass. Kinda sounds like one of those "death panels".

Click to expand...

Ok - I took some time to really think about this, my initial reactions were emotional.

No question in mind that this couple cannot afford the continuing expenses of keeping their child on life support. Althought it might be extremely painful and difficult to let go - there's nothing that medical science can do to alter the inevitable path that things will take.

Their hope is to come to the United States, have a costly surgery which they will not likely be able to afford and thus will need to have donations, write offs and other such things, only to take their child home and let the child pass away, anyway.

I see that as just prolonging the inevitable.

If there was a chance this child would recover and gain life - I'd be all for it. But it just seems that the parents are struggling with accepting the reality of things.

Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

Temporal said:

First of all, the OP is a lie. Here is the real story from Canada's main news network, the CBC: Dying Ont. baby's transfer to Detroit denied - Windsor - CBC News

The issue is that the child's breathing passage is completely obstructed because of a neurological disorder. The kid is a vegetable, basically. The parents want the kid to die at home with them, but in order to do so the kid requires a tracheotomy so that he can at least breathe partially for the few hours it will take him to die. The doctors said that performing surgery now is pointless because the child is going to die either way, tracheotomy or no tracheotomy.

The whole story is about the parents wanting the kid to die at home and trying to force the hospital to perform a surgery that is a futile waste of medical resources. They tried taking the issue to court, and the courts support the doctors. They tried transferring the kid to a hospital in Detroit to get the surgery performed, and Detroit said no.

The parents are just in denial. Why should medical resources be wasted to support that? Let the kid die.

Shame on the OP and Fox News for lying and leaving out the actual details. An American hospital rejected the surgery request. This has nothing to do with style of health care and everything to do with a couple of parents who are having trouble letting go, which is understandable.

Click to expand...

You're unbelieveable, calling others liars. How about you, the way you left out critical information like hospital security that won't let the family see their child? What kind of lie would you call that?

Ont. hospital boosts security around dying baby - Windsor - CBC News

Aunt Spiker said:

Ok - I took some time to really think about this, my initial reactions were emotional.

No question in mind that this couple cannot afford the continuing expenses of keeping their child on life support. Althought it might be extremely painful and difficult to let go - there's nothing that medical science can do to alter the inevitable path that things will take.

Their hope is to come to the United States, have a costly surgery which they will not likely be able to afford and thus will need to have donations, write offs and other such things, only to take their child home and let the child pass away, anyway.

I see that as just prolonging the inevitable.

If there was a chance this child would recover and gain life - I'd be all for it. But it just seems that the parents are struggling with accepting the reality of things.

Click to expand...

EXCLUSIVE: 'Baby Joseph' Gets Second Chance at Life in U.S. - FoxNews.com

Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

Temporal said:

First of all, the OP is a lie. Here is the real story from Canada's main news network, the CBC: Dying Ont. baby's transfer to Detroit denied - Windsor - CBC News

The issue is that the child's breathing passage is completely obstructed because of a neurological disorder. The kid is a vegetable, basically. The parents want the kid to die at home with them, but in order to do so the kid requires a tracheotomy so that he can at least breathe partially for the few hours it will take him to die. The doctors said that performing surgery now is pointless because the child is going to die either way, tracheotomy or no tracheotomy.

The whole story is about the parents wanting the kid to die at home and trying to force the hospital to perform a surgery that is a futile waste of medical resources. They tried taking the issue to court, and the courts support the doctors. They tried transferring the kid to a hospital in Detroit to get the surgery performed, and Detroit said no.

The parents are just in denial. Why should medical resources be wasted to support that? Let the kid die.

Shame on the OP and Fox News for lying and leaving out the actual details. An American hospital rejected the surgery request. This has nothing to do with style of health care and everything to do with a couple of parents who are having trouble letting go, which is understandable.

Click to expand...

Completely agree. This family is well aware that their son is going to die. They want to take him home to die. They are not trying to save his life. They went through this 8 yrs ago with another child. Now an "Activist Priest" is helping?!

Activist priest helps severely ill Canadian baby get treatment in U.S. - The Globe and Mail

This poor family.

I live in Canada. I have no issues with our healthcare system. Of course it is not perfect. What system of any kind is? I don't have a problem with what has happened in this case. The hospital made its decision. Many medical experts around the world have agreed. The family choose to continue to look for help. My fear is what the hidden agenda might be of this "Activist Priest".

Hope the family gets the closure it needs.