Thread: Canadian court orders infant removed from life support

Originally Posted by Steve

Do you have privately owned courts up there?

The government most assuredly has taken a position in this case...

Oh yes, and what is the position the Canadian gov't has decided to take in this case?

The courts held up the right of the child in this case, just to be clear here.

Originally Posted by shardene

first the judge did not authorize the hospital to remove Joseph’s breathing tube at 10 a.m. It compelled Maraachli and Nader to give their consent to have the tube removed. Without the consent of the parents or other relatives, the hospital must get approval from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. That process can take days or weeks . Secondly the doctors’ explanation that a tracheotomy would be too risky because of the possibility of infection and other complications is “a moot point " according to the parents , continuing pain and suffering by this little boy is hardly moot . Third the parent have no real wish to take this boy home , Maraachli said he would be happy if Joseph went to the Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit which may agree give him a tracheotomy to prolong his life . Lastly , the parents are in negotiation to have the Canadian government ( taxpayers ) fund this trip , so of course the American hospital may agree to help prolong this little boys life , American health care system at it's best .

The whole point of the operation is so the parents can indeed take the boy home so he can die on his own there.

I don't have any qualms about him dying at home, but I find the idea of giving him the operation to be cruel and unusual punishment, don't you?

The poor kid's life is only being prolonged right now because his parents aren't doing the grown-up thing of just letting him go at the hospital, surrounded by specialists who can give him the right care and see him through to a peaceful and dignified end, rather than all this operation business that is cruel and not guaranteed to even work, which of course is outside of the consideration of a for-profit American outfit that will take the money without even thinking about what they're doing.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Oh yes, and what is the position the Canadian gov't has decided to take in this case?

The courts held up the right of the child in this case, just to be clear here.

You missed the point. You said the government played no role, and now you're back-peddling like a circus clown on a unicycle.

The court; your government, has effectively ordered that the death of the child be expedited...

I don't know, Matt. Performing a trach on a 13 month old? FFS, that's a bitch of a procedure at the best of times. A quick google gave me success rates in the 81% range, and complaints that trach tubes still aren't designed right. Now you're talking a kid with diminished brainstem, and a long hospital stay on top of it, so a likely infection? Man, there's shitty ways to go, but a nasty staph infection is pretty low on the list.

This is one of the problems with modern medicine - we're really good at keeping people alive that really shouldn't have made it, and now we have to deal with the consequences. I can't even imagine the pain that the family is going through - what a nightmare. But, they're not going to be making great choices. IMHO, in this kind of case, you have to do what's best for the patient, and that means facilitating the most painless, dignified death.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

The whole point of the operation is so the parents can indeed take the boy home so he can die on his own there.

I don't have any qualms about him dying at home, but I find the idea of giving him the operation to be cruel and unusual punishment, don't you?

Yeah, damn, you're right, Jason. They'll probably just carve into the kid's neck with a dull razor and shove the barrel of a Bic Clic into his throat...

Originally Posted by Steve

You missed the point. You said the government played no role, and now you're back-peddling like a circus clown on a unicycle.

The court; your government, has effectively ordered that the death of the child be expedited...

The court is an independent body that is not speaking for the gov't. Same with the hospital.

I haven't back-peddled at all.

You do realize there is a difference between a body that is set up by gov't and the gov't itself, right?

Or are you not aware that one is not bound by the other's behavior?

Again, you'll have to show me how the gov't has expedited the child's death here because there is no proof of that going on.

What the hospital decided was to expedite the child's freedom to exist or to not exist on his own, without anything impeding that freedom, and I would hope every society values that over any interference by anyone.

My argument is that the gov't has actually been keeping him alive artificially, and that's just strange, don't you think?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I don't know, Matt. Performing a trach on a 13 month old? FFS, that's a bitch of a procedure at the best of times. A quick google gave me success rates in the 81% range, and complaints that trach tubes still aren't designed right. Now you're talking a kid with diminished brainstem, and a long hospital stay on top of it, so a likely infection? Man, there's shitty ways to go, but a nasty staph infection is pretty low on the list.

This is one of the problems with modern medicine - we're really good at keeping people alive that really shouldn't have made it, and now we have to deal with the consequences. I can't even imagine the pain that the family is going through - what a nightmare. But, they're not going to be making great choices. IMHO, in this kind of case, you have to do what's best for the patient, and that means facilitating the most painless, dignified death.

Fair enough - why not meet the parents half way and send the kid home intubated on palliative care? Then, the vent can be withdrawn in the home, as the parents wish. You and I both know that any palliative care than can be provided in this case can be provided in the home just as easily as in the hospital.

As for the folks making comments about the US hospital accepting the transfer for the money, wow. I've seen some ignorant stuff posted here, but those comments take the cake. Try having some compassion and use reason instead of just bleating out how you dislike the US health system.

Matt

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

If you're so smart, what do you think should be done?

Let the parents decide...

Is it the 'best' decision, the one the parents want? I don't know... but it is for them

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Do you actually have anything thoughtful to add or are you just going to attack me some more?

Stop saying silly things and I'll stop calling you on it. To insist that the government had no say while naming the two agencies of the government ordering this is... silly...

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Fair enough - why not meet the parents half way and send the kid home intubated on palliative care? Then, the vent can be withdrawn in the home, as the parents wish. You and I both know that any palliative care than can be provided in this case can be provided in the home just as easily as in the hospital.

As for the folks making comments about the US hospital accepting the transfer for the money, wow. I've seen some ignorant stuff posted here, but those comments take the cake. Try having some compassion and use reason instead of just bleating out how you dislike the US health system.

Matt

It's a for-profit system, Matt, there will always be some shuckster out there taking money and turning off the moral compass, like that late-term abortion guy in that big story a few weeks ago, so enough with this false self-righteousness.

I agree with you that a proper arrangement should be made for the kid to die at home, something other than having to do with an operation.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Let the parents decide...

Is it the 'best' decision, the one the parents want? I don't know... but it is for them




Stop saying silly things and I'll stop calling you on it. To insist that the government had no say while naming the two agencies of the government ordering this is... silly...

So you're saying the child should have whatever done to it that the parents want even if it that is not in the best interest of the child but for the parents?

Originally Posted by Steve

Yeah, damn, you're right, Jason. They'll probably just carve into the kid's neck with a dull razor and shove the barrel of a Bic Clic into his throat...

Yeah, probably....

Originally Posted by MattInFla

I'm not questioning the termination of extraordinary care. There comes a point where further advanced care is simply futile, and if his brainstem truly isn't functioning, he's never going to improve.

However, I do feel this case represents an absolute travesty, because of the way this is being done:



IMHO, this is absolutely inexcusable. The child is absolutely going to die. Nobody questions that. But to deny him hospice care - which is as much for the family as it is for him - citing possible complications from traching him is utterly inhumane.

Even if the absolute worst case occurred, and the baby died from a complication from the tracheotomy, it's not any worse than the outcome of refusing to do the trach.

Seriously, WTF?

By the way, before anyone tries to turn this into a "death panel" tirade, this sort of decision is made in the US as well. There is and always will be a need for care management - including determining when further advanced care is futile.

What I am on about in this case is the decision to, in effect, kill the child in the hospital rather then perform a simple procedure and allow the child and family the benefits of hospice care.

That's just reprehensible, IMHO.

Matt

To be honest, they should have the option to euthanize the poor child. A nice dose of sodium pentathol would do the trick. A painless, peaecful, humane transition from life to death.

Sad that we cannot do this. We give animals more dignity in their deaths. My friend just posted on FB that his oldest dog had a bad stroke overnight. He was taken to the vet today to be euthanized. When his mother had a heart attack years ago, she had to go through losing part of one leg and most of her other foot, racked up 30k in medical bills in the year that she lived afterward, lost most of her dignity, could not do anything on her own. All she wanted was to die on her own terms but the government says no to these things because of too many Jesus freaks having a say in how we live and how we choose to die.

And when this when/if this goes to the Michigan Hospital, I am sure that they will tell the family, "Don't worry. It's on us." Then they send the paperwork to the government who takes it off of their taxes and WE get to pay for it! For profit healthcare is soooooooo awesome. :/

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

It's a for-profit system, Matt, there will always be some shuckster out there taking money and turning off the moral compass, like that late-term abortion guy in that big story a few weeks ago, so enough with this false self-righteousness.

While that might apply in some cases, you have absolutely no evidence it is the case here.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I agree with you that a proper arrangement should be made for the kid to die at home, something other than having to do with an operation.

It would be very easy to transport the child home on a vent. I wonder why that option was apparently either not considered or rejected.

Matt