Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: Canadian Death Panel Decides Baby Should Die, Canadian Court Agrees

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,434

    Canadian Death Panel Decides Baby Should Die, Canadian Court Agrees

    How many liberals have clamored for the humanity of the Canadian Health Care system? I think it’s safe to say that at one time, a majority of them have advocated for a single payer system.
    One of the problems with single payer is the government can decide to stop paying because some “death panel” declared the patient’s life not worth the money required to keep them alive.
    For example, a panel in Canada’s health care system has decided to remove a baby from life support, despite the parents protestations. The parents when to court. The court found in favor of the government.
    So now, rather than die at home, with loved ones surrounding him, baby Joseph Maraachli will die at the hospital, at the hands of the Canadian health care system:
    The father and relatives of one-year-old Joseph Maraachli wept outside a London courthouse after an emotional Justice Helen Rady upheld the earlier decision of an independent provincial tribunal forcing the baby’s parents to comply with doctors’ orders.
    With all of their legal avenues exhausted, the family will have to say goodbye to Joseph Monday morning — on Family Day — when his breathing tube will be removed.
    “I do my best for my baby. My son is not a criminal . . . to just let him die,” dad Moe Maraachli said through tears.
    “They are taking my baby away from me . . . Where is the humanity?”
    He said he didn’t know how to break the news to his wife Sana Nader, who was too upset to sit through the day’s court proceedings, or explain to their seven-year-old son Ali what’s going to happen to his little brother.
    The parents have accepted the inevitable death of Joseph, and asked the hospital to perform 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” to die.
    The hospital refused because that might lead to an infection, which could kill him.
    No, really:
    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.
    Behold the logic of government.
    It gets worse:
    They have no compassion for us,” a tearful Faith said.
    “I believe when the medical world doesn’t understand a situation, they just want to get rid of it,” Samar said. “That’s exactly what’s happening.”
    Outside court, all the lawyers involved agreed Joseph’s is a “tragic” case but a decision had to be made in the child’s best interest.
    In the world of single payer health care, it is the lawyers that decide what is in your child’s best interest, not you. It is the lawyers that decide the treatment your child gets, and whether your child gets to live, or die.
    This is the system the liberals want to foist upon you. See it for what it is. Cold and inhuman.


    see:http://www.allamericanblogger.com/14...-court-agrees/
    and
    http://www.vancouversun.com/health/c...482/story.html
    First Amendment rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they will atrophy.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,434
    He can't die at home, he has to die in the hospital because the procedure they'd have to do could cause and infection and he may die.
    First Amendment rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they will atrophy.

  3. #3
    Member PickOranges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,420
    I agree there should be a law for denying affordable healthcare and medical treatment to 39 million Americans or for people with pre-existing conditions..

    That is a death panel in itself..
    Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
    Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
    It's all transparent, just read between the lines..

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    152
    Universal Healthcare for all! Healthcare is a right not a privilege.

    Bring it!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Notwithstanding the fact that it's a horribly sad story, what would have happened if this baby lived here, and had "regular" insurance, i.e. Blue Cross, Independent Health, etc?
    How would his treatment have differed?

    Is anyone so naive as to think that the insurance companies don't some form of panels, as well? Or, do they just keep paying to keep people plugged in indefinitely?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by therising View Post
    Or, do they just keep paying to keep people plugged in indefinitely?
    It depends. If you're a buffalo area public servant they leave you plugged in and give you a free boob job and tummy tuck.
    If you're in the private sector, chances are you'll get unplugged.

  7. #7
    Member PickOranges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,420
    Quote Originally Posted by FisherRd View Post
    It depends. If you're a buffalo area public servant they leave you plugged in and give you a free boob job and tummy tuck.
    If you're in the private sector, chances are you'll get unplugged.
    That is only for Buffalo teachers. You forgot about the left over skin removals..
    Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
    Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
    It's all transparent, just read between the lines..

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,434
    Quote Originally Posted by therising View Post
    Notwithstanding the fact that it's a horribly sad story, what would have happened if this baby lived here, and had "regular" insurance, i.e. Blue Cross, Independent Health, etc?
    How would his treatment have differed?

    Is anyone so naive as to think that the insurance companies don't some form of panels, as well? Or, do they just keep paying to keep people plugged in indefinitely?
    I'd like to think that they would have allowed for the baby to be trached and sent him home. It would have been a lot more cost effective to provide services at home rather than a hospital stay.
    First Amendment rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they will atrophy.

  9. #9
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Joseph suffers from a severe and deteriorating neurological condition that has left him in a persistent vegetative state
    Sure, it's difficult for the parents' to accept that fact. But it is nevertheless a fact.

    Baby Joseph is already dead. Pumping his lungs with air so that his heart will keep blood flowing through his veins just diminishes the dignity of the human being he once was.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,434
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Sure, it's difficult for the parents' to accept that fact. But it is nevertheless a fact.

    Baby Joseph is already dead. Pumping his lungs with air so that his heart will keep blood flowing through his veins just diminishes the dignity of the human being he once was.
    You so missed the whole point
    First Amendment rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they will atrophy.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by mesue View Post
    I'd like to think that they would have allowed for the baby to be trached and sent him home. It would have been a lot more cost effective to provide services at home rather than a hospital stay.
    Sure, you like to think that.

    But, the reality of it is that insurance companies will also decide when people live, and when they die.

    So, your Palinesque scare tactics only fool the foolish. So, why bother?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,434
    Quote Originally Posted by therising View Post
    ...
    So, your Palinesque scare tactics only fool the foolish. So, why bother?
    Nah but if it makes you feel better to say that ... who am I to stop you from feeling good.
    Quote Originally Posted by therising View Post
    Sure, you like to think that.

    But, the reality of it is that insurance companies will also decide when people live, and when they die.
    ...
    You can poo poo my phraseology all you want. You sell stuff, you know it's all about the bottom line. The reality is, in WNY, the insurance company will do what is cheaper to do.
    First Amendment rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they will atrophy.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by mesue View Post
    The reality is, in WNY, the insurance company will do what is cheaper to do.
    That's exactly what I'm saying. And, I don't think insurance companies looking at the bottom line is unique to WNY, but what do I know.

    Point being, whether you have private insurance or universal health care, there is always a danger of falling into that purgatory area, where someone is gonna say "he's a nice guy, but we just can't justify the expense of keeping him alive any more."

    So, the "Obama will bring death panels" thing is pure nonsense.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    12,434
    Quote Originally Posted by therising View Post
    That's exactly what I'm saying. And, I don't think insurance companies looking at the bottom line is unique to WNY, but what do I know.

    Point being, whether you have private insurance or universal health care, there is always a danger of falling into that purgatory area, where someone is gonna say "he's a nice guy, but we just can't justify the expense of keeping him alive any more."

    So, the "Obama will bring death panels" thing is pure nonsense.
    No, in the USA, they leave it up to the consumer. The claim may be denied, but you can always pay cash.
    First Amendment rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they will atrophy.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by mesue View Post
    No, in the USA, they leave it up to the consumer. The claim may be denied, but you can always pay cash.
    With Obama Care, you'll also have the option of paying cash if you're sentenced by the death panel.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •