Canadian Family in Life Support Battle Places Hope in Michigan Hospital

[BJJ-Blue]

"The parents of a Canadian boy ordered off life support by government health officials are pinning their hopes on Michigan Children's Hospital in Detroit.

Moe Maraachli and his wife, Sana Nader, of Windsor, Ontario, are asking the Detroit hospital to accept their 13-month-old son, Joseph, currently kept alive by a respirator at a Canadian hospital. The family wants Michigan Children’s Hospital to perform a tracheotomy on the child, who suffers from a rare, progressive neurological disease which, Canadian doctors say, has left him in a vegetative state beyond recovery.

Joseph’s parents believe that if the Detroit hospital will accept the child and conduct the operation, in which doctors would place a breathing tube in his windpipe, he could be cared for at home.

But time could quickly be running out.

Canadian health care allocation officials already ruled that Joseph had to be taken off life support and allowed to die in the hospital. A Canadian judge then ruled that Moe Maraachli had to give his consent to having the breathing tube removed by Monday. He refused.

Maraachli says turning off life support could cause his son to choke and suffocate. He told Fox News on Wednesday that the doctors at London Health Sciences Centre have said the “best treatment” is to “let him die… I don’t know what kind of treatment that [is].”

The family believes this procedure will allow Joseph to breathe on his own, and thereby be able to go home and likely die there.

Doctors are now asking the Canadian government to allow them to remove the breathing tube without the family’s consent. The Ontario hospital contends that a tracheotomy would be painful for the boy, despite their argument that Joseph is in a vegetative state.

But officials there appear to be cooperating with the transfer request, noting in a statement, “We can confirm that we have sent the medical record, which is over 1,000 pages to the Children's Hospital of Michigan...This is an extremely difficult time for the family, and our goal is to continue to provide compassionate care and support to baby Joseph and his family."

The London Health Services Centre says it will wait until it hears back from the Detroit hospital before making any further decisions about life support."

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/23/canadian-family-life-support-battle-places-hope-michigan-hospital/?test=latestnews

The Govenrment ORDERED the child be taken off life support, despite the wishes of the parets. I thought their socialized medicine system was so superior to ours? And this sure sounds like a "Death Panel" to me. I thought those didn't exist? :confused:

[David Jamieson]

The desperate hopes of parents of a dying child are indeed to be considered. But emotionalism should not override a clear medical decision that follows the standards and protocols of medical practice.

Using shared resources to ease emotional pain when the devices, staff and people employed to maintain the life of a dead boy is irrational and unreasonable.

I think that needs to be clearly understood here. And remember, it is not them that are paying for the devices and services and it is not their decision to waste them based on their emotional situation.

Are you suggesting the parents should have the right to congest the services and mechanisms of a hospital because they are undergoing emotional stress due to the loss of their child?

Are you suggesting that they know better than the medical professionals? And don't make it sound like some bureaucrat made the decision, it absolutely has to be supported by the medical evidence and like any doctor, do no harm is the motto.

Oh and you are a troll, still. lol :p

[MasterKiller]

1-Bad is a fool if he thinks an American insurance company would pay for the home treatment of a child against a doctor's wishes.

Essentially, insurance companies in America make these kinds of decisions every day.

[David Jamieson]

Take a red cross, SJA or paramedic course anywhere and you will be taught to refrain from attempting to aid someone who is obviously dead and cannot be treated effectively especially in context to multiple casualties. You are actively taught to move on from the obvious ones and help the ones you can. In short, you are throwing good time after bad and you are wasting valuable seconds and skills that can actually be used to save a life.

And that is small scale common sense.

Now go to the next level and ask yourself, does it make sense to spend time and money prolonging the inevitable?

I empathize with the parents, but I don't see why their completely emotional standpoint should override a medical decision made by the doctors on the case.

And hey, 1bad, you need to understand that our doctors must seek legal permission in cases like this.

[BJJ-Blue]

1-Bad is a fool if he thinks an American insurance company would pay for the home treatment of a child against a doctor's wishes.

Essentially, insurance companies in America make these kinds of decisions every day.

And I'd rather have an insurance company make those decisions over the Gov't doing it.

When a private company makes decisions you don't like, you can choose to get another provider. When the Gov't runs the whole system, you have nowhere else to go if you don't like their decisions.

But again, we were told socialized medicine doesn't have "Death Panels". I said they did. And I was proven right. You guys threw out the red herring about private companies denying care, but did not address the fact that Palin, etc were correct about "Death Panels" in socialized medicine.

[David Jamieson]

And I'd rather have an insurance company make those decisions over the Gov't doing it.

When a private company makes decisions you don't like, you can choose to get another provider. When the Gov't runs the whole system, you have nowhere else to go if you don't like their decisions.

But again, we were told socialized medicine doesn't have "Death Panels". I said they did. And I was proven right. You guys threw out the red herring about private companies denying care, but did not address the fact that Palin, etc were correct about "Death Panels" in socialized medicine.

why? A Government is bound by the laws of the land, but an insurance company is a capitalist mechanism that seeks loopholes to the laws of the land as a day to day task in order to prevent themselves from paying out claims.

Besides, the Law is the rule, not the government official or bureaucrat. the Doctors are the ones who made the decision and are bound by protocol in our system to ascertain the reality of the legal situation surrounding decisions about end of life care.

Furthermore, you are waving your flag of ignorance regarding the Canadian Medical system or you didn't read that article properly. You just spun what you wanted out of it and in doing so, you have failed to rile up anything.

perhaps you can start a thread about how dumb Reagan was for getting rid of the ability to assassinate foreign heads of state now that the Ghadafi is murdering his fellow citizens in Libya.

A hit squad is the only answer for Ghadafi and his ilk at this point most unfortunately.

As it says in the Vedas " Do not feel bad for them, they are already dead"

[MasterKiller]

And I'd rather have an insurance company make those decisions over the Gov't doing it.

When a private company makes decisions you don't like, you can choose to get another provider. When the Gov't runs the whole system, you have nowhere else to go if you don't like their decisions. Except that you can't get a new insurance provider to cover a pre-existing condition. Without Obamacare, that is ;)


But again, we were told socialized medicine doesn't have "Death Panels". I said they did. And I was proven right. You guys threw out the red herring about private companies denying care, but did not address the fact that Palin, etc were correct about "Death Panels" in socialized medicine. Doctors made a medical decision, a judge ruled in their favor, and the government is doing what it it supposed to do by enforcing that decision. Hardly a "Death Panel."

Of course, conservatives didn't mind the government stepping into this case and telling people what to do....

http://photos.upi.com/slideshow/lbox/e5663f77a92da693276145cbe1d56dc9/TERRI-SCHIAVO-ENTERS-HER-12TH-DAY.jpg

[Syn7]

its sad and i feel for them, but its time to let go... i wish it wasnt the way it is for these people, but it is... it is what it is...

but if they want to remove their son from public care and search for alternatives outside the country thats fine... as long as they dont expect one cent of taxpayers dollars to go towards any of it... the transfer, the procedure or the care afterwards... if they wanna take their kid to the states, pay for a procedure then bring the kid home and care for the kid at their home at their own expense, sure... go ahead... but its not right to ask anyone else to pay for it... the system is stressed enough as it is... we are already waaaay over medicated... a continent of fukcing junkies is what we are... pharmajunkies...

[BJJ-Blue]

Except that you can't get a new insurance provider to cover a pre-existing condition. Without Obamacare, that is ;)

Yes you can. It may be expensive, but at least you have the option. Under socialized medicine systems, the Gov't has the final say, and you can't do anything about it.


Doctors made a medical decision, a judge ruled in their favor, and the government is doing what it it supposed to do by enforcing that decision. Hardly a "Death Panel."

The doctors didn't go the judge, the Death Panel did.


Of course, conservatives didn't mind the government stepping into this case and telling people what to do....

Apples and oranges. The husband of Terri Schiavo wanted to pull the plug, and he was her legal guardian. In this case, the parents do not want to pull the plug, and they are his legal guardian.

[BJJ-Blue]

as long as they dont expect one cent of taxpayers dollars to go towards any of it...

Whao! whoa! whoa!

You guys say the taxpayers should be forced to feed, clothe, and shelter able-bodied people generation after generation, but we can't expect taxpayer money to perform a simple operation so a sick kid can have a chance to live and if he dies it will be at home as the parents want. You guys have me all confused now. :confused:

[MasterKiller]

Apples and oranges. The husband of Terri Schiavo wanted to pull the plug, and he was her legal guardian. In this case, the parents do not want to pull the plug, and they are his legal guardian.

Right, but Republican govenor Jeb Bush blocked the rights of her husband and legal guardian and the state tried to prevent him from enacting his rights as her guardian. Conservatives didn't mind that government intrusion one bit.

[MasterKiller]

Whao! whoa! whoa!

You guys say the taxpayers should be forced to feed, clothe, and shelter able-bodied people generation after generation, but we can't expect taxpayer money to perform a simple operation so a sick kid can have a chance to live and if he dies it will be at home as the parents want. You guys have me all confused now. :confused:

The kid is a vegetable and will be on life support for 70+ years. It's fruitless and a waste of money.

[Syn7]

Whao! whoa! whoa!

You guys say the taxpayers should be forced to feed, clothe, and shelter able-bodied people generation after generation, but we can't expect taxpayer money to perform a simple operation so a sick kid can have a chance to live and if he dies it will be at home as the parents want. You guys have me all confused now. :confused:

yes... yes i said it... what...

if the kid had any chance at all i would think differently... but hes an automaton at this point... a malfunctioning one at that... thats a sad truth, yes, but true none the less...

can you imagine the cost of the whole thing... transport alone will cost a ton...


you play it like the kid has a chance and he doesnt... you can keep throwing money at it to prolong the inevitable... you can keep him alive forever... but its a waste of resources just to make this family not have to let go so soon...

[BJJ-Blue]

Right, but Republican govenor Jeb Bush blocked the rights of her husband and legal guardian and the state tried to prevent him from enacting his rights as her guardian. Conservatives didn't mind that government intrusion one bit.

It's still apples and oranges.

In one case the Gov't is demanding the plug be pulled, in the other it is the legal guardian demanding it. Huge difference.

[BJJ-Blue]

you play it like the kid has a chance and he doesnt... you can keep throwing money at it to prolong the inevitable... you can keep him alive forever... but its a waste of resources just to make this family not have to let go so soon...


The kid is a vegetable and will be on life support for 70+ years. It's fruitless and a waste of money.

Not true. The parents want a tracheotomy (sp?) because they say it will either allow the child to live, or he can be taken home to die. And they prefer him to die at home rather than die the hospital if he is to die. They are not simply/only demanding he be kept on life support.

[David Jamieson]

Not true. The parents want a tracheotomy (sp?) because they say it will either allow the child to live, or he can be taken home to die. And they prefer him to die at home rather than die the hospital if he is to die. They are not simply/only demanding he be kept on life support.

BS. If it were that simple it would have been done.
Yeesh, you make it sound like the Doctors are morons or something.

This is a face value thing. The child is vegetative and is actually dead. It is a machine that is breathing for him and coursing his blood through his veins. His ekg is flat.

There are laws about removing people from hospitals after you signed the release forms to bring them in.

I feel sorry for these parents, but I really do think they need to let go. Cutting a hole in the throat of a child will not give him a better chance at anything, his airway is clear and he is breathing via the machine.

[BJJ-Blue]

I'll take Triage from a democratically elected government over a Private Insurance firm any day.

I sure as hell wouldn't.

I can't name anything Gov't does better than the private sector where they are competing with each other. Can you?

[BJJ-Blue]

I feel sorry for these parents, but I really do think they need to let go. Cutting a hole in the throat of a child will not give him a better chance at anything, his airway is clear and he is breathing via the machine.

David, they do want to let it go. They are really now just fighting so the child can die at home. It looks like that's all they are asking for. And the Death Panels are denying them this.

[David Jamieson]

David, they do want to let it go. They are really now just fighting so the child can die at home. It looks like that's all they are asking for. And the Death Panels are denying them this.

lol, death panels. Here's the thing 1bad, if they turn the machine off, how do they expect the kid to make it home? He's already dead. Do they want to take a dead body home? You can't do that here.

they are beside themselves for sure. But is it wise to accommodate someone because they are being unreasonable and irrational? Perhaps they can accompany the body to the funeral home. Point is, the child is already dead, he cannot by that virtue alone be taken to die somewhere else. :rolleyes:

"death panels", yer fuked man. :p

[MasterKiller]

It's still apples and oranges.

In one case the Gov't is demanding the plug be pulled, in the other it is the legal guardian demanding it. Huge difference.

In the Schiavo case, the Republican government of Florida prevented the legal guardian from pulling the plug, even though he was within his legal rights to do so. Talk about Death Panels all you want, but conservatives certainly approve of government intervention in life/death decisions when it suits their fancy.

[BJJ-Blue]

In the Schiavo case, the Republican government of Florida prevented the legal guardian from pulling the plug, even though he was within his legal rights to do so. Talk about Death Panels all you want, but conservatives certainly approve of government intervention in life/death decisions when it suits their fancy.

You can't say conservatives took one side. They didn't. Some were against the Gov't interference. Me myself, I didn't take a stand. I read about it, and knew it was a complex (and gut-wrenching) issue. And since it wasn't my business, I didn't force myslef to pick a side. Horrible as it is, I do have to say when the guardian demands something, it's awful hard to go against that, so I see your point.

The Elian Gonzalez case was similar in that regard. I knew conservatives who said since the father wanted him sent back to Cuba (and he was the legal guardian at that point), that was the final say, no matter how horrible a decision it was for Elian. Other conservatives, myself included, felt he should stay as the 'Wet foot, dry foot' policy does not mention age.

[Syn7]

You can't say conservatives took one side. They didn't. Some were against the Gov't interference. Me myself, I didn't take a stand. I read about it, and knew it was a complex (and gut-wrenching) issue. And since it wasn't my business, I didn't force myslef to pick a side. Horrible as it is, I do have to say when the guardian demands something, it's awful hard to go against that, so I see your point.

The Elian Gonzalez case was similar in that regard. I knew conservatives who said since the father wanted him sent back to Cuba (and he was the legal guardian at that point), that was the final say, no matter how horrible a decision it was for Elian. Other conservatives, myself included, felt he should stay as the 'Wet foot, dry foot' policy does not mention age.

yeah, based on the details i learned just from reading articles and watching the news, i couldnt help but form an opinion and take a side... it wasnt an option... i cant turn off my morals because i dont feel like dealing with them...

and i have real world experience in this respect... my mom passed afew years ago from ms... as it turned out it worked out pretty well as far as deaths go... but she had a living will and i was the one who got to make the final call if need be... she was very adamant about not being a burden, emotionally or financially, if she didnt stand a chance at any sort of recovery... im glad i didnt have to make that choice, but i would have had the situation called for it... no question... and thats my mother, so its not just some news story i can apply my principles to when convenient...

[Syn7]

Not true. The parents want a tracheotomy (sp?) because they say it will either allow the child to live, or he can be taken home to die. And they prefer him to die at home rather than die the hospital if he is to die. They are not simply/only demanding he be kept on life support.

and thats fine... if they want to pay for it themselves... why should they get special treatment??? the taxpayers shouldnt have to pay for this fams hangups... it doesnt matter what the fam thinks... more than enough medical opinion has been drawn here... its clear he's a husk... doesnt matter that the fam feels different... this kid has a ZERO chance of recovering... all it will do is MAYBE allow the kid to die at home without a machine... but probably not even that... so why should the taxpayers foot a million dollar bill for this fams emotional response to a very sad and unfortunate circcumstance...