[GeneV]

Gene isn't that the inherent nature of boards that we all make presumptions about things that we are not 100% informed about all the time? I always thought it was the nature of the beast.

Certainly true to some degree. Some subjects more than others. You could just as well ask me about critical mass for nuclear fission would be as whether a baby suffering from terminal birth defects should get a tracheotomy.

[Colbyt]

Sometimes one must take a stand no matter how many others may disagree. That is called conscience and is the only reason I am posting this reply.

Sorry people, we may to agree to disagree about this issue.

I am not going to accept the right of the government, a judge, any death squad or Doctor to define when I or my family members die. I will fight to my dying breath and attempt to implement this type of health care in this country.

Since when did Doctors and death squad board called Consent and Capacity Boards obtain the right to define what health care a person receives? I though the patient or the patient’s surrogate or caregiver defined the treatment.

It is up to the medical staff to implement the requested care or rightfully refuse to do so if they believe it not in the patient’s best interest. Then a judge can decide whether to order the Doctor or not. To order a parent to sign a release form is a gross miscarriage of justice. Let the judge and the Doctor have the blood on their hands

Some mentioned the Terry Sharvio case as an example in this country. I was polite and did not call them out on their incorrect use of facts. That case was family members pitted against each other:

...........In 1998 Schiavo's husband, Michael, petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida (Pinellas County), to remove her feeding tube pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 765.401(3).[1] He was opposed by Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who argued that she was conscious. The court determined that she would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures,[2] and on April 24, 2001 Terri's feeding tube was removed for the first time, only to be reinserted several days later...........

full article: Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In that case the courts rightfully decided in favor of the designated surrogate and against the parents.

From my readings this morning, I see the battle continues with a new lawyer.

[GeneV]

Sometimes one must take a stand no matter how many others may disagree. That is called conscience and is the only reason I am posting this reply.

Sorry people, we may to agree to disagree about this issue.

I am not going to accept the right of the government, a judge, any death squad or Doctor to define when I or my family members die. I will fight to my dying breath and attempt to implement this type of health care in this country.

Since when did Doctors and death squad board called Consent and Capacity Boards obtain the right to define what health care a person receives? I though the patient or the patient’s surrogate or caregiver defined the treatment.

So, you believe a doctor should just do whatever he is told, regardless of whether he thinks it is medically appropriate? The board is there to determine whether the doctor made a mistake in his judgment. The court is there to determine whether the mistake is such that the doctor should be ordered to do something he feels is wrong.

The post is totally missing the point on Schiavo. It is an example of a court here deciding, like a death panel, whether someone lives or dies on life support. I make no representation whether it is right or wrong or precedent for the Canadian case-- just that courts have to make these kinds of weighty and unpleasant decisions regardless of the health care system.

I don't know if the doctor's decision is right or wrong. That requires facts and training I don't have. What people mainly disagreed with is your bringing in "Obamacare" as having anything in the world to do with this case.

[Colbyt]

So, you believe a doctor should just do whatever he is told, regardless of whether he thinks it is medically appropriate? The board is there to determine whether the doctor made a mistake in his judgment. The court is there to determine whether the mistake is such that the doctor should be ordered to do something he feels is wrong.

Now who isn't reading whats posted? I believe I said,

It is up to the medical staff to implement the requested care or rightfully refuse to do so if they believe it not in the patient’s best interest. Then a judge can decide whether to order the Doctor or not.

It is an example of a court here deciding, like a death panel, whether someone lives or dies on life support. I make no representation whether it is right or wrong or precedent for the Canadian case-- just that courts have to make these kinds of weighty and unpleasant decisions regardless of the health care system.

I think you missed the part where I said,

I though the patient or the patient’s surrogate or caregiver defined the treatment.

and went on to say the part referenced above.

It this case the Doctors went before the board requesting the right to remove and DNR. That IMO is not the Doctors choice. That right belongs to the patient, his surrogate or primary caregiver. The courts there must believe something along those same lines if the court issued an order for the parent to sign the papers authorizing it.

Tis a slippery slope we walk when Doctors and boards start making the choices.

I don't know if the doctor's decision is right or wrong. That requires facts and training I don't have. What people mainly disagreed with is your bringing in "Obamacare" as having anything in the world to do with this case.

You may be correct on that. ObamaCare is so inferior to the Canadian system that it would not even rate on a scale of 1-10.

[GeneV]

Now who isn't reading whats posted? I believe I said,




I think you missed the part where I said, and went on to say the part referenced above.

Sounds like you need to make up your mind, because those quoted parts conflict with

I am not going to accept the right of the government, a judge, any death squad or Doctor to define when I or my family members die.

But if you are now accepting that doctors do have the right not to give care they deem inappropriate and judges can enforce that right, then we are in agreement and there is no reason to continue.

[eddie1960]

I only have this to say to people who continually bring up the anti US healthcare idiocies like "death squads".
Number one this is a different country with different laws and truly Universal health care where rich or poor you get treated the same based on triage. this was not a Death panel by any means it was doctors stating their considerably educated opinion that the requested procedure would be prolonging and in fact contributing to the patients suffering.
If they hadn't caved in on the previous child this would never have even ended in court. Times change and knowledge bases get larger allowing for decisions like this.
The parents were IMHO making a decision that had more to do with themselves than their child. at this stage the child deserved the dignity of dying in an environment where suffering could be eased (ie a hospital with trained professionals on hand) not at home where despite the love the family may have they were not qualified caregivers.
This has nothing to do with the US health debate and someone who obviously doesn't want to understand that government run truly universal heath care that takes out the private sector profit motive is a better way. Our health care system is far from perfect, it is still restrained by budgets, but I know of no one who has not been able to get treated if they chose to. If a treatment is not available for whatever reason people have gone to the US for it. Paid for by the same health care system not by the patient. People do not get told they have made too many claims, they do not get turned away because they have no insurance and can't afford to pay, they don't get driven into bankruptcy by hospital bills, and their children all receive health care, not just the children of a select few. Using the tragedy of this case to put forth right wing ill informed opinions does nothing but properly piss me off to be honest. it has nothing I repeat Nothing to do with this case. I admire Gene immensely for continually stepping in and pointing this out. I'm sorry Wheat is on probation because I'm sure he gets steamed at this too.

[gokenin]

Whats Wheatfield on probation for? I agree about Gene he has always been a very level headed in his points and for the record as I stated before I didn't intend on this to be about Obama care I was just curious what had caused the change in the legal and medical environment between the first and second child.

[GeneV]

Whats Wheatfield on probation for? I agree about Gene he has always been a very level headed in his points and for the record as I stated before I didn't intend on this to be about Obama care I was just curious what had caused the change in the legal and medical environment between the first and second child.

Bill has level-headed opinions, but he sometimes has a salty way of expressing them. I had to get used to it.

Jon, that comment about Obamacare was directed elsewhere.

[Colbyt]

Guys I love your photos. I may not agree with you views of life and politics. I have a life long friend that is is the the same category. Let's enjoy what we can together and ignore the rest.

Best wishes to all posters. See you in other threads.


.

[Wheatfield]

Joseph's on a ventilator and fed through a tube. He's in what the doctors call "a persistent vegetative state." The doctors say he's blind and deaf. He's missing all five brain stem reflexes considered necessary for life -- gag, cough, eye movement, pupil and cornea responses. His brain deterioration is irreversible.

Perhaps this had something to do with the decision.
Medical science has come a long way regarding keeping a body alive, but is this the same as keeping a person alive?
And even if it is, is it fair to the person.
In some respects, our medical prowess has reached god-like abilities.
At some point, we have to make the tough decisions that go along with being able to do things for the sake of being able to do them.
I'm sure that this was a tough decision, I am equally sure it was a compassionate one.
I'm also comforted that it was a decision made by judges of the highest court in the land thinking about what is best for the patient rather than by some low level accountant who is deciding when the medical insurance dollars tap is to be shut off based on an actuarial table.

[eddie1960]

Perhaps this had something to do with the decision.
Medical science has come a long way regarding keeping a body alive, but is this the same as keeping a person alive?
And even if it is, is it fair to the person.
In some respects, our medical prowess has reached god-like abilities.
At some point, we have to make the tough decisions that go along with being able to do things for the sake of being able to do them.
I'm sure that this was a tough decision, I am equally sure it was a compassionate one.
I'm also comforted that it was a decision made by judges of the highest court in the land thinking about what is best for the patient rather than by some low level accountant who is deciding when the medical insurance dollars tap is to be shut off based on an actuarial table.

Well said