Canada and babies

I read this half-assed article on a baby being denied surgery in canada, and my church said that its a result of the health care. How much of this is true? if so why the hell is canada indirectly killing babies?

 

1. None of it's true
2. Your church is retarded
3. The article by your own admission was half assed
4. Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US

 

Not doubting you, if its not true how come theres so much commotion about it? like whered it originate from

 

It originated from the same people who think teachers are on some kind of gravy train that's ruining the economy, think tax cuts are a panacea for solving debt, and try their damndest to make abortion illegal while also trying their damndest to kill Planed Parenthood, Title X, WIC, Food Stamps and other child welfare programs, while holding millions of unemployed American workers unemployment compensation(something everyone pays into, and something that is fucking vital when the unemployment rate is almost 10%) until they got tax cuts for the top 2% of people. It's the people who call the health care bill "Obamacare" and say there will be "death panels" despite the fact huge budget cuts in places like Arizona have in fact created death panels for people on Medicaid over who could get organ transplants or not and killed the child health care plan SCHIP because they wouldn't raise the sales tax 1 cent. It's the people who right now are trying to tell you the ability for public workers to unionize is the main cause of a budget deficit despite unions making more than the request concessions. Most importantly it comes from people who dont' see the irony when they go out and hold up a sign that says KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!

I.e. it comes from the tea party and FOX news.

 

Hey. Here is an article on what is going on.

A child is in the hospital in London, Ontario and is suppose to die. The parents requested that the doctors give the child a tracheotomy so that it can die at home but the doctors told the parents that the child was in a vegetative state so they wouldn't do it. The parents didn't believe it, went though the local court system to have it court ordered, but after the judge reviewed what the doctors had to say about the case he ruled against the parents.

So, a hospital in Detroit said they might be able to do the surgery but will not be doing it at this time.

This has nothing to do with health care.

 

There's no propaganda value in the whole truth- just in selecting what details to omit in order that an ill-informed target audience (or readership) can draw an emotionally charged and incorrect conclusion. The link is to a Canadian host so I wonder what source the OP read the story... it it was American then I'd say it is intended to make Health Canada look like a heartless arbiter of death and that caricature is being used as a way to cultivate opposition to the implementation of "Obamacare".

 

Very good post.

OP, helping people pay for healthcare does NOT make more people die, or make the quality of services rendered lower.

A point that very stupid people try to use against universal healthcare is that people end up not getting organs, surgeries, etc, or don't get as high a quality, because of waiting lines and such. Well yeah, that's true, they don't get as good a care... which is a lot better than NONE AT ALL. You still have the option to do what many do, and buy healthcare just like they do right now. Healthcare keeps people alive, and the nutjobs don't like it because it means we all have to pay a little bit to keep those people alive. They should be proud that they have the chance to help pay to keep people alive, as I see it.

 

It was as cnn source i read.

 

first...madcap...nice posts

it is a judge that ordered the baby to be disconnected from its ventilator at the hospital...the hospital itself has all along been willing to accommodate the parents but without a tracheotomy..here is a more reliable version[link] of the story from our national broadcaster,the CBC[mar.4]...it is absurd to think that money has anything to do with this descision when everyone knows that just the lawyers fees and legal staff salaries from this case would keep the baby alive for months and maybe longer

the ads alone on the article link up there[not mine]is a clue to the reason that site exists...my site link is far more reputable



We do not have insurance companies making our decisions on what happens at the hospital .We leave it up to the doctors and i stand behind the doctors in this case that objected to this families request

 

So why dont people give shit to the judge instead of the hospital?

 

edit, accident post sorry.

my youtube doesnt work, so i use the preview button to embed it cuz thats the only way it works. i accidently hit submit reply tho. disregard this

 

.In Canada..the general feeling is to back the courts..the people in the families ''camp''are few and far between...some religious radicals to be specific...the same radicals that stand outside the abortion clinic and yell to 14 year old girls that they are murderers and the same radicals that say god hates fags...the only reason people in the states even know this happened is because the bigshot lawyer from the states that is vowing to intervine is buddy buddy with sara the fuckin monster pallin...this shit happens all the time in both our countries..it just doesnt usually go this far because cooler heads prevail.....

finally..the judge just listens to facts and applies them to canadian law.It was not his sole decision.Many wise men wrote our laws and they also helped to decide this case,as did I by voting in elections here.

 

Interesting that conservative blow-hards like Rush Limbaugh refer to CNN as the liberal media patsy to the current administration... though in all fairness I'd be surprised if anyone ever is willing to call him on that bullshit. I half-expected you to say Fox News though this doesn't surprise me all that much.

 

So... Im hearing exactly the opposite as to what i thought. No one supports the family other than religious radicals and conservatives in the US? Because im neither but its kinda fucked that they dont provide surgery for the baby to live longer, even if it is terminal. I put myself in the parents situation, who wouldnt want to spend more time with their baby if its dying?

 

The surgery isn't to have the baby live longer, it's to have it die at home

Also the awesome irony is no private insurance company in the US would ever pay for this either.

 

i said the religous radicals are in Canada..the lawyer is in the states that is handling the appeal...keeping a baby alive on a ventilator indefinitely is more cruel to the baby than just removing the ventilator.The tracheotomy is out of the question because when the baby goes into distress any medical personal would be bound by oath and law to attempt to save the child's life visa vi...a ventilator..and we are all back to the original argument and moral issues...the doctors here are the ones that intervined''on the baby's behalf''not for their own agenda...I cant believe you think this isnt something doctors do every day..

 

I don't expect the producers at CNN care about this as they likely do not expect their audience to employ sufficient critical reasoning skills needed to figure this out. It's a play for emotion at the perceived grotesque and heartless monster of Canadian bureaucracy denying an innocent child medical care that would send it home to die! sssssshhhhhh!.

It's all about fanning outrage at something besides where it belongs.

 

The biggest two things you hear against public health care are that old people and/or children will suffer because of financial concerns.

A few years (6 or 7) back my cousins 2 year old daughter was diagnosed with cancer.

Her mother was a stay at home mom with 4 other kids, and her father worked making around 50 or 60k a year.

Over the next two years, she recieved over 2 million dollars worth of health care treatment, plus more since and is happy and well... Without our healthcare system, either she would have died, or the whole family would have been destroyed trying to pay for the healthcare they could with her still likely dying over it.

A friend of my mothers turns 72 this year... He was a bushman/construction worker his whole life, worked his ass off... in the past three years, he had both his hips replaced. On his own, he can barely afford to eat, so he would have never been able to pay for them, so he would have been trapped in a wheel chair, totally dependant on others til he died... without our healthcare system. Instead, he is living in the bush on my mothers property, cutting wood, building things and generally living life.

As to wether the care itself is good that we get, like everywhere, that depends on the doctors, but let's face it, any doctor who is in it for the money (as opposed to helping people) has left canada for the US a long time ago...

 

Being "pro choice", I strongly support and respect the choice of family members to keep people alive, as far as I'm concerned killing terry schiavo was strait up murder, this is less clear cut but I think it's still the families choice, until the very end. If the child is really vegetative, there is no worry of cruelty. Life IS precious, and if someone wants to fight to keep their child alive that's just as honorable as fighting for the RIGHT to abort at a humane point in pregnancy.

So yeah... Just saying, as I see all the anti-abortion (I'm sorry, do you think you're pro-life? no....) people jumping on this one, as a pro-choicer I think this is pretty clearly the families choice.

 

should brain surgeons also be forced by families to operate on kids with 'inoperable' brain tumors because they should at least try to save the child?where are you going to redraw the line