• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Denied Request for Hospital Transfer

Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

Could they pay for this out of pocket?
 
Dying patients artificially kept alive with no chance of recovery. Other than age and gender how are they "nothing like" each other?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Dying patients artificially kept alive with no chance of recovery. Other than age and gender how are they "nothing like" each other?
Click to expand...

I agree.

they are quite alike. in both cases, the state tried to intervene with the wishes of the patient, or the guardians of the patient.
 
Middleground said:
Terry Sciavo, anyone? That was in Canada, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

you might want to re-read my post mentionint Sciavo. That was the reverse.. a family member, petitioning the court to remove her feeding tube... not the government health authority, as in the case in Canada.
 
ARealConservative said:
I agree.

they are quite alike. in both cases, the state tried to intervene with the wishes of the patient, or the guardians of the patient.
Click to expand...

As I already pointed out, the Sciavo case was the husband petitioning the court to intervene... the Canada case was the government health authority initiating the intervention requset with the courts.
 
Whovian said:
As I already pointed out, the Sciavo case was the husband petitioning the court to intervene... the Canada case was the government health authority initiating the intervention requset with the courts.
Click to expand...

on April 24, 2001 Terri's feeding tube was removed for the first time, only to be reinserted several days later.

On February 25, 2005, a Pinellas County judge ordered the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Several appeals and federal government intervention followed, which included U.S. President George W. Bush returning to Washington D.C. to sign legislation designed to keep her alive. After all attempts at appeals through the federal court system were unsuccessful, Schiavo's feeding tube was disconnected on March 18, 2005. She died at a Pinellas Park hospice on March 31.
 
Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

Mach said:
Could they pay for this out of pocket?
Click to expand...

Private hospitals in Canada do exist. The thing is, in no scenario are there unlimited health care funds for everyone. If there were we would not be having a health care debate. Because of this, the fact remains that at some point, whether the financing is public or private, we have to hold our nose and let someone die. We can argue that its not right to do so, and its true, its not right, but circumstances aren't perfect and we are forced to only do what good we can. Because of this, it is appropriate to withdraw care after a certain point assuming ethical guidelines are followed.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
As I already pointed out, the Sciavo case was the husband petitioning the court to intervene... the Canada case was the government health authority initiating the intervention requset with the courts.
Click to expand...

You recollection of events is seriously lacking. Even Jeb got his hands into the whole ordeal.
 
This is just a tragic story and there is no good out come that I can see. I feel so bad for the parents.
 
The Libbos that have mentioned Terry Schiavo, need to go back and re-educate themselves on the circumstances of that case.

It had nothing to do with whether, or not, her life support could be removed. It had to do with who could make the decision to remove it, or not remove it.
 
apdst said:
The Libbos that have mentioned Terry Schiavo, need to go back and re-educate themselves on the circumstances of that case.

It had nothing to do with whether, or not, her life support could be removed. It had to do with who could make the decision to remove it, or not remove it.
Click to expand...

Right. So her husband won his case and then what happened? HINT: Jeb Bush got involved.
 
Middleground said:
Right. So her husband won his case and then what happened? HINT: Jeb Bush got involved.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at the end of the day, it had to do with who had the right to say if she lived, or died; the parents, or her husband.
 
apdst said:
Yes, but at the end of the day, it had to do with who had the right to say if she lived, or died; the parents, or her husband.
Click to expand...

No. The husband won in court. Then the government intervened. I'm not sure why that is difficult for you to understand.
 
apdst said:
Yes, but at the end of the day, it had to do with who had the right to say if she lived, or died; the parents, or her husband.
Click to expand...

That one is easy. When people get married they automatically gain power of attourney.
 
We have our ways of doing things here in Canada, you have yours. So if you can kindly keep your hand out of our business that would be appreciated.
 
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...


Love how everyone ignored your post. But this is true.

The government has a say because people often take advantage of free healthcare.
 
Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

megaprogman said:
I don't believe that the government should have that power, except in cases where the person is a ward of the state, such as a prisoner without next of kin. However, as a function of any insurance, I can see a case where the government no longer agrees to pay for life support and if care is continued, it must be paid for in some other way.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with anythign you just said. However, I've not seen any mention of money or costs, or who may or may not have offered to pay for what in this case.
 
Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

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

I really feel for the parents here. While I actually agree that the child should be removed from life support, it should be the PARENTS decision... not the governments or the courts.

This is the type of health care we'll end up with eventually if Obamacare is not dropped.
Click to expand...

So you want to pay for the vegetative child to stay on life support because the parents won't take him off?
 
Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

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

I really feel for the parents here. While I actually agree that the child should be removed from life support, it should be the PARENTS decision... not the governments or the courts.

This is the type of health care we'll end up with eventually if Obamacare is not dropped.
Click to expand...

I think its a good story and shows probably the biggest problem with any kind of socialized medicine, that is that there simply isn't enough money to give everyone the absolute best and longest care. And so the choice is either run a massive deficit, which is what the US has chosen, or ration what healthcare can be afforded by the system among its recipients to hopefully use it the most effective and efficient way possible. Note I'm talking about the deficit in the national healthcare services alone, not the entire public debt although healthcare costs are a huge apart of that theres other sources of all public debt.
 
This case is a terrible tragedy, but there is not one thing that any person could have done differently that would have made any meaningful difference in the outcome. It doesn't matter when the baby dies or where, and thus it really doesn't matter who decides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom