cybercoma Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's absolutely appalling that the healthcare vultures in the United States got their beaks wet off the parents' hope in the face of their son's incurable disease. Nothing like profiting off the suffering of people to really live out that American Dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's absolutely appalling that the healthcare vultures in the United States got their beaks wet off the parents' hope in the face of their son's incurable disease. Nothing like profiting off the suffering of people to really live out that American Dream. Hey...it's the American Dream. Canada doesn't have one except to say that it is NOT American. A Canadian family sought health care for their dying son, and Canada said no...die right now. America said yes...trachs don't cost that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Religion and the American Dream... offering false hope to Americans since Independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Religion and the American Dream... offering false hope to Americans since Independence. ...and millions of Canadian emigres to America agree. You hate that! "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...or sick little dying Ontario kids in need of a tracheotomy!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 You hate that! Not really. I couldn't possibly care less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Not really. I couldn't possibly care less. Then why do you opine on the "American Dream"? If it doesn't apply to you, accept that others feel and act quite differently. Baby Joseph and family couldn't care less what you think about their case either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Today I was in a mall - there were a lot of old Asian men - whithered - useless - half retarded in their youth as well as in their old age - YET we grant them life support in the form of pensions - they are people that have been pretty much useless most of their lives - YET - we extend their lives...because if we were to start killing them off - It would not stop with them but work it's way up the food chain - a society is judged in it's greatness on how well we take care of our weakest members - we will all be weak in time - as for the baby on life support - let the parents have their way - If you want to off the little kid..may as well get rid of all the vegetables - that would mean about 79% of the population - who is going to open up the gas valve on this issue - certainly not me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Religion and the American Dream... offering false hope to Americans since Independence. Thats pretty pathetic and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Today I was in a mall - there were a lot of old AsianRussian Emigre men - whithered - useless - half retarded in their youth as well as in their old age - - they are people that have been pretty much useless most of their lives - YET - we extend their lives...because if we were to start killing them off - ! The real problem as you well know is that they'd get around to you tomorrow as you be at the head of the list. How does that sound now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 The real problem as you well know is that they'd get around to you tomorrow as you be at the head of the list. How does that sound now? I am not a Russian immigrant..I was born in England - came here when I was a baby - as for being useless - I pretend to be useless- and my private life and thoughts are totally private - it is people like me that keep the likes of you alive....rule number one - never under-estimate anyone...You would be surprise by the authority I have....but YOU are typicalo - I toss the term "welfare" out there - and YOU are moved by emotion - by hate - by envy - No - I come from a long line of life savers..my father saved thousands - my mother fed the hungry and disadvantaged - and I do the same in my own way - Would your prefere if I was famous...and put myself across as some sort of superfical big shot...no - people like you would think of practicing ugenics on people like me - but when confronted face to face with ME - you will find that I am much stronger than YOU - so be still my friend - and contain your envy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Zoom, right over your head. Denigrate people you know nothing about and get the gun turned on you and suddenly its "Whiny Time w Oleg" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Hey...it's the American Dream. Canada doesn't have one except to say that it is NOT American. A Canadian family sought health care for their dying son, and Canada said no...die right now. America said yes...trachs don't cost that much. That's a rather enormous oversimplification, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 That's a rather enormous oversimplification, don't you think? Perhaps, but the bottom line is that the kid's family was not ready to let him die, and the means to prolong his life were readily available in a routine procedure. Ontario was basically telling this kid/family to hurry up and die already. Seven months more nearly doubled the length of his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Perhaps, but the bottom line is that the kid's family was not ready to let him die, and the means to prolong his life were readily available in a routine procedure. Ontario was basically telling this kid/family to hurry up and die already. Seven months more nearly doubled the length of his life. There were some pretty serious ethical issues here that basically got bashed into the ground. At least some doctors felt that it was very unethical to intervene in a doomed infant's death for a few months of additional life. Maybe those doctors are right, maybe they're wrong, but it was more complex than "We want that baby to die". Unfortunately, the infant became a bit of a plaything in a very American debate about its own healthcare system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) There were some pretty serious ethical issues here that basically got bashed into the ground. At least some doctors felt that it was very unethical to intervene in a doomed infant's death for a few months of additional life. True, but this seems antithetical to their basic role as physicians to extend life. The kid/family were not asking for an early exit via living will or DNR waiver. It's not like this kid would immediately die after being taken of the vent. Maybe those doctors are right, maybe they're wrong, but it was more complex than "We want that baby to die". Not so much death, but death's expediency to make the problem go away. Unfortunately, the infant became a bit of a plaything in a very American debate about its own healthcare system. Certainly, but the larger ethical context has been a hot topic complete with other cases for many years. IMHO, denying the procedure was just as much grandstanding by the doctors/facilities. That the child lived for seven more months wasn't guaranteed, but clearly it was a distinct possibility. No right or wrong answer here, except for the kid's family. Edited October 1, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 True, but this seems antithetical to their basic role as physicians to extend life. The kid/family were not asking for an early exit via living will or DNR waiver. It's not like this kid would immediately die after being taken of the vent. A physician's role has always been much more complex than that. It's these sorts of oversimplificatons that bother me. I mean, what the hell is the concept of triage but the most baretoothed version of doctors deciding who gets treated first and who doesn't, or in extreme situations, who dies and who gets a chance to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 .... I mean, what the hell is the concept of triage but the most baretoothed version of doctors deciding who gets treated first and who doesn't, or in extreme situations, who dies and who gets a chance to live. No need for dramatics in this case....there was no rush or shortage of talent and resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 No need for dramatics in this case....there was no rush or shortage of talent and resources. But there were and remain serious ethical questions about keeping an infant alive who was doomed, simply to make the parents feel better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 But there were and remain serious ethical questions about profiting off keeping an infant alive who was doomed, simply to make the parents feel better. Corrected for you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 But there were and remain serious ethical questions about keeping an infant alive who was doomed, simply to make the parents feel better. We are all "doomed", and the ethical dilemma was why an exception was made in the case of this child to hurry him along to that end. The burden and obligation was on the doctors, not the boy's parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 We are all "doomed", and the ethical dilemma was why an exception was made in the case of this child to hurry him along to that end. The burden and obligation was on the doctors, not the boy's parents. Oh give me a break. This baby wasn't doomed in the long distant future sense of the word, the baby was doomed in the very near future sense of the word. Doctors inevitably become uncomfortable in continuing interventions where there is absolutely no hope for recovery, or even of short-term improvement in life quality. I'll repeat, my friend, the parents didn't want their baby's life prolonged because it was going to do the baby any good. They prolonged the baby's life to make themselves feel good. Now I'm not going to condemn, because who knows, I might feel precisely the same way in their shoes, but regardless, that doesn't mean the ethical issues involved in continuing treatment that does the patient no good at all just evaporate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Oh give me a break. This baby wasn't doomed in the long distant future sense of the word, the baby was doomed in the very near future sense of the word. Doctors inevitably become uncomfortable in continuing interventions where there is absolutely no hope for recovery, or even of short-term improvement in life quality. Seven months of extended life changes that dynamic considerably. If this question had been posed with a guarantee of six months more life, I'm betting the decision would have been a no brainer. I'll repeat, my friend, the parents didn't want their baby's life prolonged because it was going to do the baby any good. They prolonged the baby's life to make themselves feel good. Now I'm not going to condemn, because who knows, I might feel precisely the same way in their shoes, but regardless, that doesn't mean the ethical issues involved in continuing treatment that does the patient no good at all just evaporate. Screw that....the parent's get a say in what happens here. If you are a medical professional sworn to provide life extending care, then do your job, explain options, and keep your opinion to yourself. Doctors (alone) don't get to decide who shall live and who shall die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Seven months of extended life changes that dynamic considerably. If this question had been posed with a guarantee of six months more life, I'm betting the decision would have been a no brainer. It does? In what way? Screw that....the parent's get a say in what happens here. If you are a medical professional sworn to provide life extending care, then do your job, explain options, and keep your opinion to yourself. Doctors (alone) don't get to decide who shall live and who shall die. The parents do not have an absolute say in what any doctor does, I'm afraid. And again you invoke an insanely simplistic notion of what doctors are bound to do and bound not to do. "Life extension" is such a huge set of concepts that it's pretty much meaningless. And I'll refer back to triage. There are very much situations in which doctors pretty much decide who lives and who dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 It does? In what way? The parents do not have an absolute say in what any doctor does, I'm afraid. And again you invoke an insanely simplistic notion of what doctors are bound to do and bound not to do. "Life extension" is such a huge set of concepts that it's pretty much meaningless. And I'll refer back to triage. There are very much situations in which doctors pretty much decide who lives and who dies. No doctor should facilitate a death - or decide on who is to live and how is not to live. Parents like it or not DO have the absloute say in what a doctor does. The same as the pro-choice people have a say over their own property, which is their body...and the product of that body is also their property - to dispose of as in abortion or to preserve and keep. If a child was a car no mechanic has the right to tell you - it`s a junker..scrap it...YOU have the right to keep that car forever even if it is not running...and will never run again - childern are property of the parents - not the state - not the medcial profession ....If other, other than the parents have more rights over this matter - then we may as well be cattle on some ranch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 It does? In what way? Pick a number....at some point we're talking serious life time to be lived. This kid lived for seven more months. The parents do not have an absolute say in what any doctor does, I'm afraid. And again you invoke an insanely simplistic notion of what doctors are bound to do and bound not to do. "Life extension" is such a huge set of concepts that it's pretty much meaningless. Nobody said they had absolute say, but they certainly aren't required to just roll over for expediency's sake. Doctors told them the outcome to be expected...they processed that, and determined to hang on to life instead of embracing death right away. Who can fault them for that? And I'll refer back to triage. There are very much situations in which doctors pretty much decide who lives and who dies. Agreed, but this is not one of them. Hell, we were taught how to perform an emergency tracheotomy in the field using a razor blade and a plastic straw just to keep people alive as part of triage. It's not a complicated procedure. 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.