Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

gokenin · 02-22-2011, 12:49 PM

Judge orders baby off life-support - Canada - Canoe.ca

The baby's father and mother, Sana Nader, 35, wanted the same treatment for Joseph as was given to their daughter before she died, eight years ago at 18 months -- give Joseph a tracheotomy and ventilation, and allow them to take him home to die what would be a peaceful death.

But Joseph's doctors say while a tracheotomy -- an incision is made in a patient's airway, to help breathing -- may prolong the baby's life, it's futile in this case and would likely cause much discomfort. It would certainly also increase the risk of infection and pneumonia, they argue.

Why is it that the state has the authority to remove the parents choice of procedures for their child? Is it because it would prolong the life of the child and cost the state more money? Just curious not passing judgement

wlachan · 02-22-2011, 02:24 PM

I think it's time to call for Canadian Human Rights. To be honest, I think it's a tough decision. As parents, I can understand their love and don't want to let go. But reality must be faced and prolonging the baby's life will only prolonging the suffering. I would be the 1st to pull the plug, not that I am cold blooded but when the parents are being unreasonable, somebody has to do something.

gokenin · 02-22-2011, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by wlachan

I think it's time to call for Canadian Human Rights. To be honest, I think it's a tough decision. As parents, I can understand their love and don't want to let go. But reality must be faced and prolonging the baby's life will only prolonging the suffering. I would be the 1st to pull the plug, not that I am cold blooded but when the parents are being unreasonable, somebody has to do something.

being Unreasonable to ask that their child be allowed to die at home with family in peace? Is it even right for the state to have that kind of decision ability to deny a family the option of how a loved one is to die?

wlachan · 02-22-2011, 03:04 PM

Obviously I am not the parents and do not have the whole picture. From my pov, I fail to see the difference between dying in hospital and dying at home. Or have the parents had some other plan once the baby left the hospital? I do agree however, that the Canadian gov might have intervened too much sometimes. Where do we draw the line? Depends on which side we are on. There are many injustice that I feel strongly in Canada but this one somehow doesn't strike me that much. To me, it is the journey that counts. The baby has already reached the end of the journey even w/o pulling the plug. Emotion is strong, but rationalness should not be pushed aside either.

Last edited by wlachan; 02-22-2011 at 03:13 PM.

ihasa · 02-22-2011, 04:36 PM

If a parent wants to embark on a course of action which - no matter how well intentioned or for whatever reason - will increase their child's suffering, is it really right for doctors to automatically comply with that decision?

Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wheatfield · 02-22-2011, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by gokenin

Judge orders baby off life-support - Canada - Canoe.ca

The baby's father and mother, Sana Nader, 35, wanted the same treatment for Joseph as was given to their daughter before she died, eight years ago at 18 months -- give Joseph a tracheotomy and ventilation, and allow them to take him home to die what would be a peaceful death.

But Joseph's doctors say while a tracheotomy -- an incision is made in a patient's airway, to help breathing -- may prolong the baby's life, it's futile in this case and would likely cause much discomfort. It would certainly also increase the risk of infection and pneumonia, they argue.

Why is it that the state has the authority to remove the parents choice of procedures for their child? Is it because it would prolong the life of the child and cost the state more money? Just curious not passing judgement

I would go out on a limb and say the answer to your question is no.
The article went into some detail regarding what the procedure would do, and what risks were entailed.
Essentially, the tracheotomy would have done little more than prolong the suffering of the child.
If that is what the parents want, then I would go so far as to say they are bad parents.
The parents, especially the father, seemed to take the position of drama queen, which, while understandable to an extent, it is certainly over the top to say there is no humanity in Canada.

Canada might be a little farther along regarding sensitivities in this regard, as we have had at least one very high profile case where a child was in unbearable suffering due to disease and a parent took it upon themselves to end the child's life rather than prolong it.
This possibility may have come up in the court's deliberations, with the possibility that the parents might have to be charged with murder if the child was released into their care and they took the child's life to end his suffering.
You might want to goggle Robert Latimer for a bit of background. His was certainly a very sad situation, and one that a parent should never be forced into.

SteveM · 02-22-2011, 05:45 PM

I don't think this type of issue is specific to Canada.

It's a very tough situation for the parents, but family members make decisions for all sorts of reasons and sometimes the state will step in when it is clear that the patients best interest is not being taken into account. For example, a number of parents have tried to stop their children from receiving blood transfusions, because they were Jehovah Witness.

This particular case pits prolonging life at all cost vs quality of life / pain and suffering. The statement in the article of "being sent home to die peacefully" is not necessarily accurate. In this case one has to look to see if the infant is being subjected to further trauma to then be sent somewhere in an uncontrolled environment to die which further increases the suffering.

I was a Paramedic for more than 10 years and often wondered about the value in performing CPR and other measures on what should have been a DNR case. It was common to inflict broken ribs and other injuries in an attempt to bring someone back. Unfortunately, for these cases, the best result was to stretch things out for another week until the individual passed. Is this in the best interest of the patient?

Colbyt · 02-22-2011, 06:31 PM

It is indeed a tragic case. The family has my thoughts and prayers.

Things like this do happen when government and not families and Doctors make medical decisions. Are those of you who support ObmaCare ready for these stories on the US news?

GeneV · 02-22-2011, 07:00 PM

This has nothing to do with national health care. A doctor is not required to do something that in his professional opinion will cause more suffering. I don't think a court here would compel a doctor to do something he did not approve.

And yes we have already had litigation over similar issues of suffering, life and death. Remember Terry Schiavo?

SteveM · 02-22-2011, 07:12 PM

Did you read the article? Doctors were the ones in court preventing it. It could be worse by having some insurance company meddling where it shouldn't belong. Not every country places god powers into the hands of shareholders.

GeneV · 02-22-2011, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by smc

Did you read the article? Doctors were the ones in court preventing it. It could be worse by having some insurance company meddling where it shouldn't belong. Not every country places god powers into the hands of shareholders.

I read the article. It is not clear to me who sued first, but it is clear that the parents want the tracheotomy and the doctors don't want to do it.

gokenin · 02-22-2011, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

I read the article. It is not clear to me who sued first, but it is clear that the parents want the tracheotomy and the doctors don't want to do it.

The family sued the hospital after it decided that it was going to remove the breathing tube without the parents approval.

Wheatfield · 02-22-2011, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Colbyt

It is indeed a tragic case. The family has my thoughts and prayers.

Things like this do happen when government and not families and Doctors make medical decisions. Are those of you who support ObmaCare ready for these stories on the US news?

Because I am on probation and my posts are moderated, I am very limited in my being able to express how very wrong your post is.
It is wrong in fact, and frankly, it is wrong in philosophy.

shooz · 02-22-2011, 11:22 PM

A life hangs in the balance | London | News | London Free Press

GeneV · 02-23-2011, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by gokenin

The family sued the hospital after it decided that it was going to remove the breathing tube without the parents approval.

I think that is half right. The family wanted the tube removed as well, but they wanted the tracheotomy.

02-22-2011, 12:49 PM	#1
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899	curious about Canadian health decision Judge orders baby off life-support - Canada - Canoe.ca The baby's father and mother, Sana Nader, 35, wanted the same treatment for Joseph as was given to their daughter before she died, eight years ago at 18 months -- give Joseph a tracheotomy and ventilation, and allow them to take him home to die what would be a peaceful death. But Joseph's doctors say while a tracheotomy -- an incision is made in a patient's airway, to help breathing -- may prolong the baby's life, it's futile in this case and would likely cause much discomfort. It would certainly also increase the risk of infection and pneumonia, they argue. Why is it that the state has the authority to remove the parents choice of procedures for their child? Is it because it would prolong the life of the child and cost the state more money? Just curious not passing judgement

02-22-2011, 04:36 PM	#5
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	If a parent wants to embark on a course of action which - no matter how well intentioned or for whatever reason - will increase their child's suffering, is it really right for doctors to automatically comply with that decision? Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Last edited by ihasa; 02-22-2011 at 04:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McDonald's and your health	mikemike	General Talk	27	10-07-2010 08:22 PM
Obama's health care law will increase the nation's health care costs	Artesian	General Talk	187	05-20-2010 10:18 AM
Palin and her family has used Canadian Health care	Peter Zack	General Talk	110	03-21-2010 08:58 AM
Health Care for Everyone... NOT!!!!	Fl_Gulfer	General Talk	235	12-17-2009 06:40 AM
How we are going to do this? Health Care	Russell-Evans	General Talk	196	09-22-2009 06:23 PM

02-22-2011, 02:24 PM	#2
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	I think it's time to call for Canadian Human Rights. To be honest, I think it's a tough decision. As parents, I can understand their love and don't want to let go. But reality must be faced and prolonging the baby's life will only prolonging the suffering. I would be the 1st to pull the plug, not that I am cold blooded but when the parents are being unreasonable, somebody has to do something.

02-22-2011, 02:54 PM	#3
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899 Original Poster	Originally posted by wlachan I think it's time to call for Canadian Human Rights. To be honest, I think it's a tough decision. As parents, I can understand their love and don't want to let go. But reality must be faced and prolonging the baby's life will only prolonging the suffering. I would be the 1st to pull the plug, not that I am cold blooded but when the parents are being unreasonable, somebody has to do something. being Unreasonable to ask that their child be allowed to die at home with family in peace? Is it even right for the state to have that kind of decision ability to deny a family the option of how a loved one is to die?

02-22-2011, 03:04 PM	#4
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Obviously I am not the parents and do not have the whole picture. From my pov, I fail to see the difference between dying in hospital and dying at home. Or have the parents had some other plan once the baby left the hospital? I do agree however, that the Canadian gov might have intervened too much sometimes. Where do we draw the line? Depends on which side we are on. There are many injustice that I feel strongly in Canada but this one somehow doesn't strike me that much. To me, it is the journey that counts. The baby has already reached the end of the journey even w/o pulling the plug. Emotion is strong, but rationalness should not be pushed aside either. Last edited by wlachan; 02-22-2011 at 03:13 PM.

02-22-2011, 05:38 PM	#6
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	Originally posted by gokenin Judge orders baby off life-support - Canada - Canoe.ca The baby's father and mother, Sana Nader, 35, wanted the same treatment for Joseph as was given to their daughter before she died, eight years ago at 18 months -- give Joseph a tracheotomy and ventilation, and allow them to take him home to die what would be a peaceful death. But Joseph's doctors say while a tracheotomy -- an incision is made in a patient's airway, to help breathing -- may prolong the baby's life, it's futile in this case and would likely cause much discomfort. It would certainly also increase the risk of infection and pneumonia, they argue. Why is it that the state has the authority to remove the parents choice of procedures for their child? Is it because it would prolong the life of the child and cost the state more money? Just curious not passing judgement I would go out on a limb and say the answer to your question is no. The article went into some detail regarding what the procedure would do, and what risks were entailed. Essentially, the tracheotomy would have done little more than prolong the suffering of the child. If that is what the parents want, then I would go so far as to say they are bad parents. The parents, especially the father, seemed to take the position of drama queen, which, while understandable to an extent, it is certainly over the top to say there is no humanity in Canada. Canada might be a little farther along regarding sensitivities in this regard, as we have had at least one very high profile case where a child was in unbearable suffering due to disease and a parent took it upon themselves to end the child's life rather than prolong it. This possibility may have come up in the court's deliberations, with the possibility that the parents might have to be charged with murder if the child was released into their care and they took the child's life to end his suffering. You might want to goggle Robert Latimer for a bit of background. His was certainly a very sad situation, and one that a parent should never be forced into.

02-22-2011, 05:45 PM	#7
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	I don't think this type of issue is specific to Canada. It's a very tough situation for the parents, but family members make decisions for all sorts of reasons and sometimes the state will step in when it is clear that the patients best interest is not being taken into account. For example, a number of parents have tried to stop their children from receiving blood transfusions, because they were Jehovah Witness. This particular case pits prolonging life at all cost vs quality of life / pain and suffering. The statement in the article of "being sent home to die peacefully" is not necessarily accurate. In this case one has to look to see if the infant is being subjected to further trauma to then be sent somewhere in an uncontrolled environment to die which further increases the suffering. I was a Paramedic for more than 10 years and often wondered about the value in performing CPR and other measures on what should have been a DNR case. It was common to inflict broken ribs and other injuries in an attempt to bring someone back. Unfortunately, for these cases, the best result was to stretch things out for another week until the individual passed. Is this in the best interest of the patient?

02-22-2011, 06:31 PM	#8
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,418	It is indeed a tragic case. The family has my thoughts and prayers. Things like this do happen when government and not families and Doctors make medical decisions. Are those of you who support ObmaCare ready for these stories on the US news?

02-22-2011, 07:00 PM	#9
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	This has nothing to do with national health care. A doctor is not required to do something that in his professional opinion will cause more suffering. I don't think a court here would compel a doctor to do something he did not approve. And yes we have already had litigation over similar issues of suffering, life and death. Remember Terry Schiavo?

02-22-2011, 07:12 PM	#10
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Did you read the article? Doctors were the ones in court preventing it. It could be worse by having some insurance company meddling where it shouldn't belong. Not every country places god powers into the hands of shareholders.

02-22-2011, 07:18 PM	#11
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by smc Did you read the article? Doctors were the ones in court preventing it. It could be worse by having some insurance company meddling where it shouldn't belong. Not every country places god powers into the hands of shareholders. I read the article. It is not clear to me who sued first, but it is clear that the parents want the tracheotomy and the doctors don't want to do it.

02-22-2011, 08:01 PM	#12
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899 Original Poster	Originally posted by GeneV I read the article. It is not clear to me who sued first, but it is clear that the parents want the tracheotomy and the doctors don't want to do it. The family sued the hospital after it decided that it was going to remove the breathing tube without the parents approval.

02-22-2011, 10:27 PM	#13
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	Originally posted by Colbyt It is indeed a tragic case. The family has my thoughts and prayers. Things like this do happen when government and not families and Doctors make medical decisions. Are those of you who support ObmaCare ready for these stories on the US news? Because I am on probation and my posts are moderated, I am very limited in my being able to express how very wrong your post is. It is wrong in fact, and frankly, it is wrong in philosophy.

02-22-2011, 11:22 PM	#14
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	A life hangs in the balance \| London \| News \| London Free Press

02-23-2011, 05:33 AM	#15
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by gokenin The family sued the hospital after it decided that it was going to remove the breathing tube without the parents approval. I think that is half right. The family wanted the tube removed as well, but they wanted the tracheotomy.

curious about Canadian health decision

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!