Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trach's are a simple procedure. This little boy will choke/die from his own secretions as soon as he's removed from the machine...without a trach.
I can't see this happening in America 'right now'. But, yes, if Obamacare is not repealed, THIS is our future......Imo, this is INHUMANE.
Complete nonsense. Make no mistake there are plenty of for profit insurance companies in the states that deny medical treatment every minute of every day in this nation and that's a fact, I've seen it happen first hand. I also have relatives in Canada that do enter the US for treatment because they are in an area with few people and specialist and live near the US border. The difference is they don't go broke doing this because they are covered by their Canandian health benefit.
Trach's are a simple procedure. This little boy will choke/die from his own secretions as soon as he's removed from the machine...without a trach.
I can't see this happening in America 'right now'. But, yes, if Obamacare is not repealed, THIS is our future......Imo, this is INHUMANE.
Repeal repeal repeal
Replace replace replace (both Obama AND his CARE)
In Canada they are discussing wether to disconnect a braindead person from lifesupport.
In the US, Death Panels in the insurance industry check claims to see if they can squirm out of life-saving treatments to people with deadly diseases, or delay them long enough that the sufferer dies before they have to pay out anything.
If that is the difference between Obamacare and no change, it is a very strong argument for Obamacare. You do understand that shouting about the disconnection of a braindead person is a funny way of defending a system that habitually denies lifesaving tratments to conscious and otherwise aware people, don't you?
If you are referring to my post and got something to say, then say it.
I'm responding to the OP. If I had responded to you, I would've quoted you.
That Fox News piece is half a page long. Even the Toronto Sun (a bad paper) story was a lot more detailed and there is more to this story than the title of this thread would lead you to believe.
But yes, in general americans need to stop acting like they know what they're talking about and fix their own HC issues instead of obsessing about the Canadian or UK system.
I'm responding to the OP. If I had responded to you, I would've quoted you.
That Fox News piece is half a page long. Even the Toronto Sun (a bad paper) story was a lot more detailed and there is more to this story than the title of this thread would lead you to believe.
But yes, in general americans need to stop acting like they know what they're talking about and fix their own HC issues instead of obsessing about the Canadian or UK system.
Brits and Canadians know their systems are not perfect but seem to have a pretty open debate about what is wrong and put pressure on politicians to fix those problems.
Here is the US we seize upon those "problems" to show how "terrible" those systems are but we never seem open to having an honest discussion about our own system and its many failings. The implication is that they are bad, therefore, we must be good. In reality, those systems are not "bad" and they deliver decent quality healthcare to the vast majority of their citizens a whole lot cheaper than we manage to do.
In Canada they are discussing wether to disconnect a braindead person from lifesupport.
In the US, Death Panels in the insurance industry check claims to see if they can squirm out of life-saving treatments to people with deadly diseases, or delay them long enough that the sufferer dies before they have to pay out anything.
If that is the difference between Obamacare and no change, it is a very strong argument for Obamacare. You do understand that shouting about the disconnection of a braindead person is a funny way of defending a system that habitually denies lifesaving tratments to conscious and otherwise aware people, don't you?
Ont. couple's appeal to bring baby home dismissed (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Couple+appeal+bring+dying+baby+home+dismissed/4304482/story.html - broken link)
Quote:
[LEFT]Although the couple has accepted their baby boy's inevitable death, they insisted that it occur peacefully at home and not by removing his breathing tube, which will cause him to choke since he can't swallow or breathe on his own. The parents asked for a tracheotomy, which would open up a direct airway through an incision in Joseph's trachea and make it possible to bring the baby home.
But doctors refused to perform the procedure, citing serious risks of infection, pneumonia and other possible complications.
Maraachli and Nader went before the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario, an independent body that deals with matters under the Health Care Consent Act, which sided with the doctors in late January and agreed that it was in Joseph's best interest to have the breathing tube removed.
[LEFT]In appealing that decision, the couple's London lawyer, Geoff Snow, argued Thursday that the Consent and Capacity Board's decision was "unreasonable" becausethe board did not observe Joseph in the critical care unit and the lead doctor's determination that the baby was in a vegetative state was based on "loose criteria."
Snow said there is a "stark contrast" between the medical opinions and what the baby's parents have observed.
"Their child responds to them . . . He does feel, he does cry, he does react to situations around him,"
One has to ask what exactly is meant by "loose criteria" and be concerned that such "loose criteria" is not used against the brain injured or diseased in the future.
Personally, I would have wanted the board to have observed the patient in person.
My question is: if the parents were accepting of the child's death, and the hospital was willing to send him home to die, what would the cost have been to have administered the trach in order to allow this child to die more comfortably as opposed to choking? Given that death is the final outcome either way, the excuses cited by doctors (pneumonia, infection or possible complications) are irrelevent.[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
