bjre Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 What does DERP mean please.... a little more info from here I think, but it also begs the question: If the baby (or anyone else) reaches this tragic state, why are they put on life support in the first place? Sounds heartless I know, but considering what is being done here, it's no worse. I seem to remember around the time of the Terry Schiavo fiasco, watching an interview with someone about the use of life support systems. He said, it was never meant to sustain life indefinitely, it was only meant to be temporary life support machines enabling the patient to survive for a period of time until they are recovered from a problem. It is real ethical and moral dilemma, especially when it also comes down to costs and rationing. http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2987022 It should be the parent's decision if they like to have the baby and take care of him on their own cost, it should be their own rights. The state, the judge should have no rights to remove parents' personal human right and the freedom and force tax payer to pay the small amount for the kid and much larger amount of court expense and medical business cost. with that amount of money, 10 more kids can be saved in Canada, or 10000 more kids can be saved world-wide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 What does DERP mean please.... a little more info from here I think, but it also begs the question: If the baby (or anyone else) reaches this tragic state, why are they put on life support in the first place? Sounds heartless I know, but considering what is being done here, it's no worse. I seem to remember around the time of the Terry Schiavo fiasco, watching an interview with someone about the use of life support systems. He said, it was never meant to sustain life indefinitely, it was only meant to be temporary life support machines enabling the patient to survive for a period of time until they are recovered from a problem. It is real ethical and moral dilemma, especially when it also comes down to costs and rationing. http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2987022 Derp is a nonsensical sound that, in this case, carries about as much meaning as the idiotic, sadistic sound-bite on death camps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 What does DERP mean please.... Derp is just another product of American culture that easily finds its way into Canada: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=derp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I realize that the baby is not going to survive, the parents know this, all they want is the tracheotomy so the baby can be more comfortable, and die at home. I don't think this is too much to ask and object to OHIP paying for this to be done in Detroit, which makes no sense as it would cost more. The baby is in a vegetative state. There's no THERE there. I don't mean to be cold, but why should we spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars when its, in effect, already dead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Fox News is all over this...as expected! http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/23/canadian-family-life-support-battle-places-hope-michigan-hospital/ Yes, the national inquirer of the Republican set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 If parent's want to spend their own money, it's none of your goddamned business. And has nothing to do with rationing or a waste of resources. The resources are still rationed away from someone else that might need them. Moreover, you're rationing resources in a free-market medical system by denying them to those that can't afford it. In reality, there is not an unlimited supply of medical doctors, equipment, facilities and knowledge. In Canada it's rationed by need, in the US it's rationed by ability to pay. You're free to decide whether or not one system is better than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yes, the national inquirer of the Republican set. That's National Enquirer...at least get your insults correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 You don't know if it's a so-called waste of resources. Doctor's have varying opinions. They do? Let's hear an opinion that says the kid is not a vegetable and might survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 The baby is in a vegetative state. There's no THERE there. I don't mean to be cold, but why should we spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars when its, in effect, already dead? Oh great...in Ontario you have to fight to keep your kid alive...in Florida, you have to fight to let them die. Wonder which one I would pick...hmmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 They do? Let's hear an opinion that says the kid is not a vegetable and might survive. Some people here are also vegetables, but that doesn't mean they should die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Who cares --- are life support units in short demand? Do they not pay taxes? My geuss is that the life support unit isn't needed for someone else and if it was it would be a resource issue - otherwise why cause mental trauma to people? How much is this costing them - I bet their hospital bill for the birth of the baby made some doctors a few bucks. How many life support units are there , how many are needed - could another hospital lend one? I need to actually read into this issue, but I'm going to assume the scarcity of resources is not so much an issue. More than likely it was an angle taken by a commentator when the parents would not listen to the advice of doctors that rationally believe, as opposed to the parents emotional belief, that there is no chance for recovery. If there is no chance of recovery, then how long do you leave the child on life-support? 75-years? In that case, you do take a life-support unit out of commission for the life of the child, who likely will never recover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 If there is no chance of recovery, then how long do you leave the child on life-support? 75-years? In that case, you do take a life-support unit out of commission for the life of the child, who likely will never recover. ...until the child dies. If it takes 75 years, maybe the doctors were in a hurry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Traditionally, children are cared by family. Now the government want to take care of all about childrenIn this case, if the parents want to buy the life-support unit themselves, have it installed in their home, and care for the child themselves, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem with the hospital, doctors, or the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Oh great...in Ontario you have to fight to keep your kid alive...in Florida, you have to fight to let them die. Wonder which one I would pick...hmmmmmm Just chalk it up to God's will. Isn't that what you people do? Say a few hallelujahs and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Just chalk it up to God's will. Isn't that what you people do? Say a few hallelujahs and move on. You've played the God card with someone who doesn't believe. Sorry.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjre Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I need to actually read into this issue, but I'm going to assume the scarcity of resources is not so much an issue. More than likely it was an angle taken by a commentator when the parents would not listen to the advice of doctors that rationally believe, as opposed to the parents emotional belief, that there is no chance for recovery. If there is no chance of recovery, then how long do you leave the child on life-support? 75-years? In that case, you do take a life-support unit out of commission for the life of the child, who likely will never recover. It should be parent's human right to decide that, even if it is emotional. In a democracy country, people have right to go street to shout "peaceful protest" and get arrested, but they don't have human right to decide their own things. In a "non"-democracy country, the western country media said they have no right to shout in street, but they have the human right to decide their own things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Here's the latest on this tragic case. http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/02/23/17384581.html A couple interesting points in here. Michigan denied them the transfer after the London hospital sent them the file on the child. Obviously, they're unable to do anything. "They've wanted a second opinion and they're not even being given a chance,"said Abbas. "They're upset, emotionally distraught, but they're not going to stop until this baby gets his justice served. God is the only one that will take him away from us." They were given a second opinion by the Michigan hospital that denied the transfer.As far as God being the only one that will take this child away, it's terribly sad that they can't see that God has already taken their child away. It is humanity that is making the child appear alive with machines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 ....As far as God being the only one that will take this child away, it's terribly sad that they can't see that God has already taken their child away. It is humanity that is making the child appear alive with machines. Interesting....it is also humanity that makes abortions possible with skill and machines. Just sayin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 The problem is not with the machines, but if you want to compare... The equipment, doctors and facilities taken up by this child that they cannot save can be used to keep someone alive. The doctors, like the mother that has an abortion, is under no moral obligation to keep the child alive. It would be nice if they did, but they also have an obligation to not do any harm to others in their care. By not removing the breathing tube from this child, who will never recover because he is completely brain-dead, they are denying life-saving services to another child that might be able to survive long enough to recover with the equipment. You're confusing the right-to-life with a right not to die. The latter distinctly different and not actually a ethically valid position or a tenet of human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 So, it still begs the question: in cases where the patient is in a non recoverable vegetative state why put them on life support systems in the first place, because taking them off the system is when it gets ethically tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 a little more info from here I think, but it also begs the question: If the baby (or anyone else) reaches this tragic state, why are they put on life support in the first place? Sounds heartless I know, but considering what is being done here, it's no worse. I seem to remember around the time of the Terry Schiavo fiasco, watching an interview with someone about the use of life support systems. He said, it was never meant to sustain life indefinitely, it was only meant to be temporary life support machines enabling the patient to survive for a period of time until they are recovered from a problem. It is real ethical and moral dilemma, especially when it also comes down to costs and rationing. Totally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I need to actually read into this issue, but I'm going to assume the scarcity of resources is not so much an issue. More than likely it was an angle taken by a commentator when the parents would not listen to the advice of doctors that rationally believe, as opposed to the parents emotional belief, that there is no chance for recovery. If there is no chance of recovery, then how long do you leave the child on life-support? 75-years? In that case, you do take a life-support unit out of commission for the life of the child, who likely will never recover. Yes, it seems clear that it's not a cost/rationing issue. OHIP was willing to pay for treatment in Detroit if the Detroit hospital would accept the transfer. That the American hospital, that potentially had something to gain financially if it accepted the transfer, refused suggests that the doctors rationally believe that the child's best interest will not be served by keeping the child on life support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I think generally, they don't know the extent of the damage until further testing is done. That testing isn't always something that can be done quickly. Shutting of life support is never done lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 ....By not removing the breathing tube from this child, who will never recover because he is completely brain-dead, they are denying life-saving services to another child that might be able to survive long enough to recover with the equipment. This is just a rationalization....both doctors and machines are allocated for abortions as well, resources that could be redirected to other health services. The shortage of facilities and ventilators is another debate already discussed in other threads. You're confusing the right-to-life with a right not to die. The latter distinctly different and not actually a ethically valid position or a tenet of human rights. Oh really? I'm not confusing anything.....the point is obvious, despite your attempt to deflect the interesting comparison. We're all gonna die....some sooner than others in this scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) It should be the parent's decision if they like to have the baby and take care of him on their own cost, it should be their own rights.The problem is that the parents not only want to take the baby home, but want a tracheotomy to enable that. The wanton wastefulness of that course is the problem. The state, the judge should have no rights to remove parents' personal human right and the freedom and force tax payer to pay the small amount for the kid and much larger amount of court expense and medical business cost. with that amount of money, 10 more kids can be saved in Canada, or 10000 more kids can be saved world-wide. I agree with you here, as I did with Scriblett's post above. Edited February 24, 2011 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.