Canada and babies

This won't kill the kid, as an "inoperable" tumor could. They just want to be able to take him home. And well depending on the tumor...

If the hospital won't do it that's one thing, but a judge being able to order the family to kill the kid, instead of EVEN just keep him alive as now, is strait fucked up.

 

roo..you seem more worried about how the parents feel than you are about the poor baby

 

Taking this pretty basic (in my opinion) right from family is a pretty totalitarian step, when a judge can say that you have to kill a family member.

As for the kid, the doctors SAY he's vegetative... the family disagrees, or something... But if the doctors are right, how does it logically follow that to avoid being cruel to a VEGGIE of a human, we need to kill it? The kid's not suffering, and life is quite amazing and improbable, you only live once.... For quite the opposite reason as religious people, I'm very opposed to any kind of euthanasia or even allowing someone to die in any way. If the kid dies, the kid dies, but there's no excuse to kill him sooner than must be done.... I don't know what, if any, level he is conscious on, but it's possible something's going on and the judge shouldn't have the right to take that away.

Being in the families position, I could decide that he IS suffering, or IS really a goner, and pull the plug. But NO ONE should be legally ordering them to do this.

 

Holy hell, the judge didn't order the kid killed. The kid was going to die, the parents just wanted the operation so the kid could die at home and the judge sided with the hospital(hence medical advice). If they have the money to pay for it out of their pocket then go hog wild, otherwise it's a completely useless waste of resources. Most people who die in the hospital would in fact like to die at home but they don't get to be the special snowflake case.

 

A judge did not order the baby killed, and only a moron would think that.

What the judge said, was he would not order the hospital to perform a tracheotomoy, in order to let the parents take the baby home without the machine that is currently keeping him alive.

PAY ATTENTION...

He did NOT say they couldn't take the child home.
He did NOT say the child has to be taken off the machine.
He did not say that the parents can't try to save their childs life.

He DID say, the hospital doesn't have to perform a surgery in order to make the family feel better. THAT IS ALL

If the family wants to take their child off the breathing machine, that is THEIR choice... a choice that will result in the almost immediate death of their child. But make no mistake... that is THEIR choice.

The hospital (public healthcare) has even offered to pay for the transfer of the baby to their home, and will put the baby in the parents arms before removing the breathing machine.

The court case was whether or not a hospital (and doctors) should be forced to do surgeries that neither extend a persons life, nor improves their end of life.

What's next? You going to bitch about our health care system because it won't pay to buy you a new home when you are dying in order to make your end of life more comfortable?

WAIT!!! I KNOW.... We'll make it a law that if you have a dying baby, then everyone up to and including 5th cousins can get free botox injections... Hows that sound? That should make them feel better eh?

 

I quoted this whole thing to make sure you can't change it... I want this evidence of your own stupidity to remain forever.

Go and read what the case was really about before you make yourself look any worse.

 

I'd HOPE that you would have noticed that I'm not that type... I said it, and unless there's a grammatical error or more I want to add, I won't edit it, once it's become part of the conversation, quoted or otherwise.

As you said, I'm probably a moron, I read an article that said the judge ordered the family to consent to having a breathing tube removed.... I should probably have researched it more before saying anything.

If the article I read was correct, that's fucked up. But the judge shouldn't order the hospital to do anything they don't want, either. I just don't see how it's even a legal decision, if you don't like the hospitals decision go to another hospital, but why is there a judge saying ANYTHING? did the family try to sue?

I would, however, prefer to think of myself as ignorant or misguided, both of which are considerably more curable than being a moron

 

I did not say you were a moron, and if I thought you were, I would tell you so, straight out, and then stop talking to you.

I said, what you said was stupid, and an example of your stupidity. There is a huge difference.

The family was trying to force the hospital to form a tracheotomy in order to let the baby breathe on its own, so they could take it home and show it off to everyone before it died.

The baby has zero chance of survival, the family wasn't fighting to keep it alive longer for any benefit to the baby.

If they just wanted the baby to live as long as possible, they can leave it in the hospital where the machines will keep it alive.

If they just wanted the baby to die at home, the hospital will take the baby and machine there before they unhook it.

What they want though is to be able to have their baby at home, alive and well, and seems they can't have that, they are grasping at whatever they can. No matter how misguided or fucked up it is.

In my opinion, what they are asking for, is one very tiny step above asking to have the baby stuffed on death so they can still have it with them instead of letting the baby pass away and be buried (or cremated, whatever)...

As for the traction the story is getting from crazy right wingers in the US... the crazy right winger part should be enough to explain it...

 

Oh, if you really did think a judge had ordered a baby to be killed, then yes, you would be a moron. I just figured that was you being argumentative... if it was a true belief that a canadian judge did order the death of a baby... well, I would have to re-evaluate my opinion of you.

 

Well I was thinking of this in contrast to the terry schiavo case in the US, where the husband decided to starve her to death, and a bunch of courts decided it was just fine, even though she was quite alive and emotional, and evidence pointed to the husband trying to murder her in the first place, thus causing her brain damage. I mean, I figured there was more to it than "you have to go kill your child now", but.... even then, there would be more fucked up things, at least in my country (the lens through which I see things, to some degree, of course). I mean, all the republican right was behind saving terry, and the one time they tried to do good, they failed... The bush family even tried to legally take custody of her from the husband and care for her, and where denied.

I know terrys relatives voiced support for the family in this case, but all the articles I've seen on it also implied stronger similarities.... Of course, the obvious difference being that she might have liked colouring books more than most ladies her age, but she was by no means a veggie, or about to die of her own accord.

 

If I were you, I would change my sources of information if today's post's have been an example of what they are telling you.

Do some research in the Schiavo case.

 

Pro tip: never trust anything said by your "church".

 

Reading about it now... It's pretty horrible, with shit like a judge saying they couldn't TRY to feed her orally, in a normal fashon. She was awake, and showing signs of emotion, and was murdered because her husband felt she was in the way.

I seem to recall, he got married shortly after she died.... Could be wrong, still reading.

Of course, this is not the same case with this child. But there where no doctors saying to kill schiavo because she was retarded....

Schiavo was, as I recall (again, still reading up to this) in obvious pain and distress at being killed by starvation/thirst. There was no excuse for saying it was her "wish" to die like that.

*edit*

On February 23, 2005, the Schindlers filed a motion for relief from judgment pending medical evaluations.[46] The Schindlers wanted Schiavo to be tested with an fMRI and given a swallowing therapy called VitalStim. The motion was accompanied by thirty-three affidavits from doctors in several specialties, speech-language pathologists and therapists, and a few neuropsychologists, all urging that new tests be undertaken.[47][48] Patricia Fields Anderson, the Schindler family attorney, still held out hope "that Terri might be able to take nourishment orally, despite past findings that she is incapable."[49] Judge Greer formally denied the motion and ordered the "removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward". Anderson argued that Greer did not specify "artificial nutrition and hydration" versus "oral nutrition and hydration" and stated that "the withholding of food and water...was not ordered by the Court but by Michael Schiavo."[50] In his order, Greer also set a time and date for the removal of the feeding tube: "1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005."[51]

(above this, it said that a nurse testified that she COULD hand feed schiavo)

That's from wikipedia, but regardless.... That's fucking barbaric. It doesn't seem to bear much similarity to this case to me, and the fact that I've seen at least two articles comparing them bothers me...

The comparisons I'd seen made me think there might be more to this, and I seem to have been wrong. But I didn't even know the things I'm seeing about schiavo now, it's fucking evil... "no, you can't hand feed her, because SHE'S not doing it, and would want to be starved to death".

 

Good plan.

 

Canadains when are you going to learn ,growing babies in jars is not a sustainable fuel source...unless you mix in some oil. USA... USA... USA...

 

Canadian doctors said that the baby has no hope of recovery, but his parents took him to the US hospital after pro-life organization Priests for Life paid for a specially-equipped air ambulance -- against the advice of the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC).

 

That would be the american right wing looking for something to splash across the face of america to show how 'bad' our health care is to scare those too stupid to look up the truth.

 

... or lazy- that narrows it down to about 320 million people here. It's what empowers the oligarchs to effect economic subjugation.

 

The baby was in a vegetative state on life support. The treatment was denied by their insurance company souly because it was very unlikely that the child would benefit from it. They offered an alternative treatment later on that the parents had accepted. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the issue because misinformed people jump to conclusions. Should a child survive on life support and a feeding tube for the rest of it's life? The father wasn't being a barbarian for asking for the removal, he was being logical and it was not an easy decision. That's not quality of life.