• 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

ARealConservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

The judge did not INITIATE that... her HUSBAND did. This was the direct result of her husbands legal fight to have the tube removed.. NOT an arbitrary decision by the court or the insurance company or what have you.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Terri Schiavo case (surname pronounced /ˈʃaɪvoʊ/) was a legal battle between the husband and the parents of Teresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo that lasted from 1998 to 2005. At issue was whether the equipment that had been used to sustain her life since 1990 – specifically a feeding tube – should be disconnected, thereby allowing her to die.
Click to expand...
 
Juiposa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Does that mean that Candians should not post opinions about how we Americans handle our business? 'Cause that's seriously going to limit your ability to post in a whole lot of threads around here. But hey... if that's what you want... :mrgreen:
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
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.
Click to expand...

it appears to matter to the parents.
 
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...

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...)
 
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...
Middleground said:
You recollection of events is seriously lacking. Even Jeb got his hands into the whole ordeal.
Click to expand...

Apparently, my recollection of the case is better than yours.

facts are your friends... you should make use of them sometime...
Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Terri Schiavo case (surname pronounced /ˈʃaɪvoʊ/) was a legal battle between the husband and the parents of Teresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo that lasted from 1998 to 2005. At issue was whether the equipment that had been used to sustain her life since 1990 – specifically a feeding tube – should be disconnected, thereby allowing her to die.
Click to expand...
 
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...

I've explained that several times. they are unable to comprehend.
 
I feel terrible for the family. I understand their desperation. However, life-and-death choices are made here in America every day. Private insurance companies here in the states would probably have notified the family that they would no longer cover the cost of artificially extending the baby's life or paying for an experimental procedure (which it was).

This is a terrible tragedy, in which one outcome is certain. I will say that I think using this tragedy for a political reason, i.e. attacking Obama's health care, while pretending that nothing of the sort happens here was completely disingenuous. Trying to portray the Schivo case as completely different, when in fact a judge decided whose wishes would be legally accepted, upon which time public figures all over the country, including the state's governor, tried to overturn what that judge had decided and the rights of her legal guardian for their own partisian ideology is beyond disingenous.
 
Middleground said:
No. The husband won in court. Then the government intervened. I'm not sure why that is difficult for you to understand.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The husband won in court.... the government TRIED to intervene, and failed. The husbands decision was enforced... as it should have been.
 
Erod said:
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...

first of all - our hospital denied him because they said he can't be helped. no matter where he is, they are out of treatments

second of all - here an insurance company would have a 'death panel' and decide if he lived or died based on money. and they typically pick our your doctor as well. and often times offer deals and gifts to the medical community

its a sad case.
if the doctors are right, he's going to die and the humane thing is to let him to do.

the family said he has responses, but sometiems families mistake natural jerks for a sign of brain activity that just isn't there.

if they want a third opnion, they should get it. but after 3, they need to let go
 
I just feel awful for the family. I know if this were me and my children I would be overwhelmed with hurt and desperation. I would try everything in my power to keep my babies alive but if they are in a veg. state, I would have to tell someone else to give the call. I could never be the one to say let him/her go. I think this is just a lose/lose situation and pray for the well-being of that family.
 
Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

Juiposa said:
Love how everyone ignored your post. But this is true.

The government has a say because people often take advantage of free healthcare.
Click to expand...

People believe what they want to believe. The typical strategy is to flat out call you wrong, or simply ignore you and continue talking about something else.

Either way, I'm right.
 
Juiposa said:
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.
Click to expand...

If debating is not what you came here for, then maybe you should try something else. Jeepers.
 
Whovian said:
The husband won in court.... the government TRIED to intervene, and failed. The husbands decision was enforced... as it should have been.
Click to expand...

Noting different from what I had written.

From your wiki source:

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.

Did you not find it astonishing that your government tried to go over a court's ruling? Wow.
 
There is no question that the child is going to die. The argument is over whether or not the hospital (and the government) should collude with the parents to perform unnecessary surgery on a dying child to satisfy the parents' desire as to the location that the death takes place. (and incidentally to pick up the tab for it.)
 
Erod said:
It was about the fact that a JUDGE, not the doctor and the parents working together, made the decision regarding taking the child off the ventilator.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Terry Schiavo.
 
Re: Canadian government orders child off life support

Wiseone said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the problem with socialized healthcare is exactly the same as the problem with privatized health care?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
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.
Click to expand...

it obviously matters to the parents, or this wouldn't be a story on dp
 
Middleground said:
Noting different from what I had written.

From your wiki source:

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.

Did you not find it astonishing that your government tried to go over a court's ruling? Wow.
Click to expand...

I did find it so. Thankfully, the system worked anyway.
 
I saw this at lunch the other day on Fox News and found myself conflicted...

On one side, I understand the parents desire to bring their kid home to die there instead of at a hospital.

On the other side, I realize that a doctor takes an oath to do no harm. I realize a Doctor is not a slave and thus shouldn't have to perform a medical procedure if they don't wish (For example, I don't think a doctor should be forced to have to perform an abortion if a patient demands one). In this case, its putting a child through additional pain and discomfort for a result that would have no effect on the child and is a purely selfish desire by the parents.

So I can understand the parents wanting to do it, and I can understand doctors refusing to do it. Its just a nasty situation all around and sad all around.
 
ARealConservative said:
it obviously matters to the parents, or this wouldn't be a story on dp
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

That's odd, my first comment disappeared. Try, try, again. upsideguy, did you read the post on my blog that you linked? Because it doesn't mean what you think it means. Here it is, 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...
 
Whovian said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not really a huge difference. If the family member hadn't been there caring for her, the state would have stopped long agi. She had been dead for a long time. Keeping the dead breathing is not all that honorable. While I'm reluctant to call any family members bad or evil, or question their motives, the fact is today we pretty much do when someone is no longer alive, when the brain is dead. That may not have been true once upon a time, but it is today. Perhaps we should work to learn how to say good bye and not work to keep the dead breathing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom