cybercoma Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 Do any of you people actually have an idea what the hell you're talking about? Trach's do not hurt. Period. They are a remarkably simple procedure done under local anesthetic (for patients that are awake) and without anesthetic for those already being given drugs such as Propofol. It takes about 1 1/2 seconds to take a patient off of a ventilator, and another 2-3 minutes to extubate them. To take this baby from being intubated to having a free-flow tracheostomy (as would be done) would be a grand total of less than 20 minutes. It is NOT painful, and if the baby really is "brain dead", he would not even notice it being done. If there is VAP (ventilator-associated pneumonia), then the child's breathing would be so laboured that he would likely stop breathing within the minute of removal. Ask me how I know and I'll tell what I did from March 5 to June 15 last year. They didn't refuse to perform the trache because it would hurt. They claim they refused to do it because it put the child at an unnecessary risk of pneumonia and infection. Quote
Hydraboss Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 They didn't refuse to perform the trache because it would hurt. They claim they refused to do it because it put the child at an unnecessary risk of pneumonia and infection. Pneumonia and infection are direct results of remaining intubated, not the other way around. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
Smallc Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 Pneumonia and infection are direct results of remaining intubated, not the other way around. It seems though that in the opinion of two specialized hospitals, the baby is dead. It seems that int he opinion of the doctors, the medical review board, and the courts, the tracheotomy is the wrong way to go. The baby should be allowed to die. Quote
Hydraboss Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 It seems though that in the opinion of two specialized hospitals, the baby is dead. It seems that int he opinion of the doctors, the medical review board, and the courts, the tracheotomy is the wrong way to go. The baby should be allowed to die. And if that is the case (brain death), then the child's respiratory system won't last two minutes off support. What, exactly, is the harm in giving the baby a trach? If his life is not viable, he will not survive long enough to leave the PICU. Period. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
cybercoma Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 And if that is the case (brain death), then the child's respiratory system won't last two minutes off support. What, exactly, is the harm in giving the baby a trach? If his life is not viable, he will not survive long enough to leave the PICU. Period. That's the point then, isn't it? Why give the parents the impression the child can have a trache and be sent home when giving him a trache won't do anything but put a hole in the kid's neck while they watch him die on the way out the door. Seems like a pretty cruel thing to do to the parents and the child (carving his body for no reason). Quote
Hydraboss Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 That's the point then, isn't it? Why give the parents the impression the child can have a trache and be sent home when giving him a trache won't do anything but put a hole in the kid's neck while they watch him die on the way out the door. Seems like a pretty cruel thing to do to the parents and the child (carving his body for no reason). Why not give the parents what they want? They are losing/have lost their child. Why make them go through all the legal wrangling and drag this out? Right now, the hospital can basically keep the child "alive" indefinitely thus prolonging this bullshit. Give the kid the trach (the incision will be less than one centimeter) and let the parents stand there while the child expires. Right now, they have a picture of the ventilator being turned off and their child suffocating to death. I have watched this being done, and it's different than almost anyone thinks. My guess is that off the vent, the whole ordeal will be less than half and hour, and then the parents can grieve. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
cybercoma Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 The parents want the trache so they can bring the kid home, Hydra. They live in Windsor, which is 2 hours away from Victoria Hospital in London. The parents don't want a trache so they can sit in the hospital room and watch the child die that way. If what you say is true, admittedly I'm only going off your own words, then how do you picture it playing out? The doctors give the child a trache and the parents get the child into the car and start down the 401 to Windsor. Before they even hit Chatham, the kid is dead in the car. I mean, this is a horrible situation for them, but going by your own words and considering the doctors, courts, and Michigan hospital have all said that transferring the child is a poor decision, the trache is a bad idea. It's not so much the trache itself, but the fact that the parents want to be able to bring the child home to die and they quite obviously can't. Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) The parents want the trache so they can bring the kid home, Hydra. They live in Windsor, which is 2 hours away from Victoria Hospital in London. The parents don't want a trache so they can sit in the hospital room and watch the child die that way. If what you say is true, admittedly I'm only going off your own words, then how do you picture it playing out? The doctors give the child a trache and the parents get the child into the car and start down the 401 to Windsor. Before they even hit Chatham, the kid is dead in the car. I mean, this is a horrible situation for them, but going by your own words and considering the doctors, courts, and Michigan hospital have all said that transferring the child is a poor decision, the trache is a bad idea. It's not so much the trache itself, but the fact that the parents want to be able to bring the child home to die and they quite obviously can't. What's more, the procedure is utterly unnecessary. It will not improve the baby's condition, as the condition is already at the point where the baby is in a vegetative state. As hard as it may be for the parents to understand, the doctors only concern is the patient, and not their feelings or their desires in this regard. To perform an unnecessary procedure would be an ethical breach. Like I said many posts ago, nature has delivered this family a losing hand, and shouting at the system and making unreasonable and even unethical demands on it will not alter the situation. Edited February 26, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Uh-oh...looks like this Little Joe has survived Canadian death panels for now: Thirteen-month-old Joseph Maraachli, who is currently kept alive by a respirator and was recently denied a transfer to a Michigan hospital to undergo a tracheotomy, arrived in the U.S. early Monday morning with Fr. Frank Pavone and other Priests for Life staff. "Priests for Life staff toiled through the night for many nights, working in concert with dozens of people to make this possible," Father Pavone said in a statement. "Now that we have won the battle against the medical bureaucracy in Canada, the real work of saving Baby Joseph can begin." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/13/baby-joseph-gets-second-chance-life/ Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ToadBrother Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Uh-oh...looks like this Little Joe has survived Canadian death panels for now: Thirteen-month-old Joseph Maraachli, who is currently kept alive by a respirator and was recently denied a transfer to a Michigan hospital to undergo a tracheotomy, arrived in the U.S. early Monday morning with Fr. Frank Pavone and other Priests for Life staff. "Priests for Life staff toiled through the night for many nights, working in concert with dozens of people to make this possible," Father Pavone said in a statement. "Now that we have won the battle against the medical bureaucracy in Canada, the real work of saving Baby Joseph can begin." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/13/baby-joseph-gets-second-chance-life/ Ah to live in a fantasy world... Quote
Scotty Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 "Priests for Life staff toiled through the night for many nights, working in concert with dozens of people to make this possible," Father Pavone said in a statement. "Now that we have won the battle against the medical bureaucracy in Canada, the real work of saving Baby Joseph can begin."[/indent][/i] Toiled through the night for many nights to bring a brain dead baby across to the US where they'll spend tens of thousands in medical care. I wonder if maybe they could have spent that time and money helping someone else, like someone who's alive? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Toiled through the night for many nights to bring a brain dead baby across to the US where they'll spend tens of thousands in medical care. I wonder if maybe they could have spent that time and money helping someone else, like someone who's alive? Hell no...there is no better international poster child to be found. Death by Ontario bureaucracy is not God's way. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Hell no...there is no better international poster child to be found. Death by Ontario bureaucracy is not God's way. He wasn't killed by Ontario bureaucracy. He was killed by a disease. Ontario bureaucracy merely declined to continue treating him after his death. A rather common sense approach, in my opinion, and one your priests could learn from. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 He wasn't killed by Ontario bureaucracy. He was killed by a disease. Ontario bureaucracy merely declined to continue treating him after his death. A rather common sense approach, in my opinion, and one your priests could learn from. Don't start down that path, because a lot more bureaucratic deaths would be the result. The child is not dead yet. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Hell no...there is no better international poster child to be found. Death by Ontario bureaucracy is not God's way. God killed him. It's Ontario bureaucracy that was keeping blood and oxygen flowing through his dead body long enough for his family to say goodbye. It's tragic that they can't let him go, but after similarly losing a daughter years ago, who can blame them. Quote
Scotty Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Don't start down that path, because a lot more bureaucratic deaths would be the result. The child is not dead yet. It is BRAIN DEAD. Perhaps Republicans don't take this as a sign of mortality given much of their leadership has been similarly described, but most of the rest of the world feels differently. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 It is BRAIN DEAD. Perhaps Republicans don't take this as a sign of mortality given much of their leadership has been similarly described, but most of the rest of the world feels differently. Now you're just making stuff up...."most of the the rest of the world" has no such protocol. Go find the child and stab it to death....it would not be a crime according to your logic. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Now you're just making stuff up...."most of the the rest of the world" has no such protocol. Go find the child and stab it to death....it would not be a crime according to your logic. It might well be a crime but I doubt it would be murder. You can't kill someone after they've already died. So far as I know, brain death - where that can be determined - is the standard medical protocol for ascertaining death. Edited March 14, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 It might well be a crime but I doubt it would be murder. You can't kill someone after they've already died. So you admit the child is still alive...good choice. So far as I know, rain death - where that can be determined - is the standard medical protocol for ascertaining death. Lots of variation there...the determination is much more rigorous now depending on the country / jurisdiction. You can't claim one size fits all. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Don't start down that path, because a lot more bureaucratic deaths would be the result. The child is not dead yet. He's alive in the same sense that a carott is alive. He's brain dead and would die immediately if he wasn't on expensive life support. We wouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong the life of a carott, so why would we do it on the public purse for a human vegetable? I'd be willing to bet big money that most American insurance companies would come to the same decision that the Ontario health system has. The only difference is that in the US the parents could decide to send him to another hospital and waste their own money to keep their vegetable alive, which most American families couldn't afford to do anyways. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Lots of variation there...the determination is much more rigorous now depending on the country / jurisdiction. You can't claim one size fits all. Down south in Bible Land there's a lot of angry Jesus lovers still trying to get abortion outlawed because a couple of cells growing in a uterus has a 'soul'. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Down south in Bible Land there's a lot of angry Jesus lovers still trying to get abortion outlawed because a couple of cells growing in a uterus has a 'soul'. Not just "down south".....just try to get a third trimester abortion in Quebec if the mother's life is not threatened. Quebec sends these cases down to the Bible Belt (Kansas) because doctors won't perform the procedure. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ToadBrother Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 So you admit the child is still alive...good choice. Alive only because of medical intervention. The infant is in a vegetative state with absolutely no chance of recovery. Even if some medical team could keep this infant alive, the brain is gone. What's more, at some point even those doctors that are treating it now are going to face the same exact ethical question of keep respiration going for a patient with no chance of recovery. Quote
Evening Star Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 OHIP ('ON bureaucracy') was even willing to pay for him to receive a tracheotomy in Michigan if the Detroit hospital were to accept him. That this American hospital came to the same conclusion as doctors in Ontario suggests that the decision was based on what made the most sense for the child, not based on some cost/rationing principle. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Posted March 14, 2011 Alive only because of medical intervention.... Many people are still alive only because of medical intervention. Try again... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.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.