Canadian Death Panels

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697
Canadian Death Panels

Canada has death panels, and that’s a good thing.

Is this a good or bad thing? Do the Canadians on this board agree with the article?

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

Sorry, this is a little too close to home right now...first anniversary of my mom's death. Will try and come back another time to reply.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"mom2robbie" wrote:

Sorry, this is a little too close to home right now...first anniversary of my mom's death. Will try and come back another time to reply.

:bigarmhug: I am sorry. Please do not feel that you need to if you do not want to.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

This isn't the first time this has happened in Canada. We debated this case before where the baby was moved to the United States.

'Baby Joseph' Moved to U.S. for Medical Care

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"mom2robbie" wrote:

Sorry, this is a little too close to home right now...first anniversary of my mom's death. Will try and come back another time to reply.

Another hug for you... :bighug:

To answer the debate, I think it's a good thing. Death should not be a drawn-out procedure. Say goodbye and let them go. There is no sense in keeping a brain-dead body "alive" at the cost of millions of dollars.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

I don't think it would have cost millions of dollars to give that baby a tracheotomy so he could go home to die. I'm sure it did cost a lot more to have him flown to the U.S. for treatment just so he could go home and die in peace though. It just seemed like such a small thing to ask to be able to take your baby home to die, I sure wouldn't want some death panel making that decision.

'Baby Joseph' Dies in His Canadian Home Surrounded by Family | Fox News

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

The cost of keeping (sp?) Rasouli 'alive' is approximately $1 million per year. That's taxpayer money. Sure, we contribute to a certain point, as we should, but the amount the taxpayers contribute to life support when the patient is deemed to be brain dead with no chance of recovery is finite.

Gloria, you seem to have a surprising amount of compassion for these patients. However, would you be okay contributing to the life support costs to keep a brain dead patient alive for potentially years and years? I would be shocked if you said yes.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

When taxpayers provide only a finite number of acute care beds in public hospitals, a patient whose life has all but ended, but whose family insists on keeping her on life support, is occupying precious space that might otherwise house a patient whose best years are still ahead.
The incentives in the American health care system point in the opposite direction. In the United States, keeping an all-but-dead patient alive on life support in a hospital bed generates income for the hospital, for as long as its bills get paid.

This sums it up for me. I understand that families want to hold on to hope for as long as possible, and I'm not arguing that I wouldn't feel the same way. But, if a patient truly is brain dead with no hope of recovery, from a practical standpoint that only means that we are keeping the body in a living state after the part that most of us care about (the mind, or the soul if you believe in souls) appears to be departed, while potentially with holding limited resources from patients with a more hopeful outcome. It's a tragic situation and my heart goes out to those families, but at the end of the day I don't know that its in anyone's best interests to just prolong the body's death forever when the brain is already dead.

ETA: I love it that Bonita is reading Slate these days. Please tell me I had something to do with that! (I feel like half the articles I post here are from Slate.) Biggrin

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

The cost of keeping (sp?) Rasouli 'alive' is approximately $1 million per year. That's taxpayer money. Sure, we contribute to a certain point, as we should, but the amount the taxpayers contribute to life support when the patient is deemed to be brain dead with no chance of recovery is finite.

Gloria, you seem to have a surprising amount of compassion for these patients. However, would you be okay contributing to the life support costs to keep a brain dead patient alive for potentially years and years? I would be shocked if you said yes.

There are other alternatives than keeping someone in an expensive hospital, it isn't just an either or situation. He could be moved home or to a nursing facility.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

There are other alternatives than keeping someone in an expensive hospital, it isn't just an either or situation. He could be moved home or to a nursing facility.

I don't know about nursing homes in the US, but in Canada you will not find a patient on life support in a nursing home or palliative care facility. Palliative care is where people go to die, not to be kept artificially alive.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I don't know about nursing homes in the US, but in Canada you will not find a patient on life support in a nursing home or palliative care facility. Palliative care is where people go to die, not to be kept artificially alive.

I'm pretty sure there are people in nursing homes on life support equipment. Here is an example I found just with a simple search.

If you are receiving skilled services or are on life-support equipment, the home health care provider is required to be on-call 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. Be sure the provider gives you their 24-hour phone number. If you are receiving only non-skilled services or equipment that is not life supporting, the provider should give you the phone number where you can call during regular service hours.

Home Health Care in Florida | FloridaHealthFinder.gov

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"Spacers" wrote:

To answer the debate, I think it's a good thing. Death should not be a drawn-out procedure. Say goodbye and let them go. There is no sense in keeping a brain-dead body "alive" at the cost of millions of dollars.

*Edited to be a tad nicer.*

While I might personally agree with you, I can not in any way imagine thinking it was anyone else's business to decide whether or not someone's life is worth living. It might start out as only the brain dead, but how long does it take to move onto to anyone who is terminal to anyone that is severally handicapped to anyone who is not blond haired and blue eyed?

Also, my mother is a nurse in a nursing home and there are many patients that are there for long term care. My uncle was in a persistent vegetative state for 2 years in a nursing home before he died.

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

ETA: I love it that Bonita is reading Slate these days. Please tell me I had something to do with that! (I feel like half the articles I post here are from Slate.) Biggrin

Haha. It has nothing to do with me. I have some very politically minded friends on FB. They post articles on FB all the time. If I think it will make an interesting debate I try to bring it over here.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I don't know about nursing homes in the US, but in Canada you will not find a patient on life support in a nursing home or palliative care facility. Palliative care is where people go to die, not to be kept artificially alive.

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I'm pretty sure there are people in nursing homes on life support equipment. Here is an example I found just with a simple search.
Home Health Care in Florida | FloridaHealthFinder.gov

Gloria, that is in Florida, last time I checked Florida is not a Canadian province as much as some Canadians would like. The most equipment that can be used in nursing homes in Canada is an IV.

Why this subject is a little close to home.... my mom had Alzheimer's, September 2011 she had a series of strokes that left her pretty much in a vegetative state, she did not need any machines but could not move or talk, she was asleep pretty much all the time. I spent 2.5 hours with her and she opened her eyes for a few seconds, I live 4000 kim from the rest of my family. In May 2012 she had pneumonia, instructions were give to keep her comfortable but no life support (DNR). My sister left to go to her son's funeral. The doctors resuscitated against our wishes. She finally passed away last October 20th. From May to October it was pure h.e.l.l. on my family. This is in Ontario (and as much as some people from there think they are all of Canada, they are one province) where there are "death panels".

BTW the title is misleading as the panels are only in Ontario, each province has different policies and procedures. Spending millions per year to keep someone who is brain dead alive is wrong. If you want to keep a brain dead patient alive you should have to pay for it personally.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

As long as we're talking about compassion, Bonita, would you be perfectly okay with a patient who has a living will and personal directive - all that stuff. They explicitly do NOT want to be kept alive by artificial means when their progressive illness or whatever prevents them from breathing on their own or they fall into a coma and are diagnosed as brain dead or non-recuperative. So, you're okay with the family going against the wishes of the patient, and keeping them on life support against their express written wishes? What if that was you? Don't you think under those circumstances (which are common, btw) that the 'death board' is a good thing? Seeing to it that the wishes of the patient are honoured? I do.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

As long as we're talking about compassion, Bonita, would you be perfectly okay with a patient who has a living will and personal directive - all that stuff. They explicitly do NOT want to be kept alive by artificial means when their progressive illness or whatever prevents them from breathing on their own or they fall into a coma and are diagnosed as brain dead or non-recuperative. So, you're okay with the family going against the wishes of the patient, and keeping them on life support against their express written wishes? What if that was you? Don't you think under those circumstances (which are common, btw) that the 'death board' is a good thing? Seeing to it that the wishes of the patient are honoured? I do.

I believe a living will should be honoured. The Government being able to go in and over ride family and and living will because they think that their care is too expensive is not ok in my opinion.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I believe a living will should be honoured. The Government being able to go in and over ride family and and living will because they think that their care is too expensive is not ok in my opinion.

Then it's a good thing that's not what this is about.

Like the article states, this is about having an impartial ethical board who can give guidance when there is a dispute.

These death panels are brilliant and I wish they were in every country.

My mother-in-law, if she were in any other developed country, would be declared brain dead. She is in a persistent vegetative state, and has been since a massive stroke in May. She has told her kids and me in the past that she would never want to live this way. But my sister-in-law, who has no medical knowledge at all, thinks she will recover, despite having no higher brain function. It took 4 months to convince her to get a DNR. The hospitals in this country do not have any sort of ethical oversight and the doctors cannot even suggest that a patient be taken off of life support. If we were in Ontario, we would be able to grieve for her instead of watch her body waste away. She will die horribly of dehydration or pneumonia instead of with dignity. I wish we had access to a panel like this. Our societies spend too little time talking about end-of-life which is stupid because it will happen to everyone.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"Spacers" wrote:

There is no sense in keeping a brain-dead body "alive" at the cost of millions of dollars.

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

The cost of keeping (sp?) Rasouli 'alive' is approximately $1 million per year. That's taxpayer money.

"mom2robbie" wrote:

If you want to keep a brain dead patient alive you should have to pay for it personally.

"blather" wrote:

Then it's a good thing that's not what this is about.

It seems to me that money and cost of care are exactly what this is about. Do you really want to come to come to a place where the Goverment comes in and says that your life is not worth living and you are costing too much? There is also nothing making this only for old brain dead people. That micro preemie? The baby that is born with Downs? (Sorry, I do not remember what we said was the pc term) Someone who was in a terrible accident like Joni Ericson Tada (sp)? That is just not a place that I think we ever should be.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

I feel that the people against this, and those who are against socialism in general, really have little faith in their fellow human beings. This really isnt about money, and the board is instructed to not take cost of care into account. It only comes into play when the doctors and the family cannot agree about the treatment or lack thereof. The board is to take the patients well being into account, nobody elses. Personally I think it would be great to have someone impartial advocating for the patient. Families are often too emotional at these times to make an informed decision, and even Drs can be influenced by past experience, and there own interactions with the family and patient. But then, I actually trust other people to make good decisions and to be intelligent when they are put on a board like this.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

The cost of keeping (sp?) Rasouli 'alive' is approximately $1 million per year. That's taxpayer money. Sure, we contribute to a certain point, as we should, but the amount the taxpayers contribute to life support when the patient is deemed to be brain dead with no chance of recovery is finite.

This a big reason that health insurance should be private.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"ftmom" wrote:

I feel that the people against this, and those who are against socialism in general, really have little faith in their fellow human beings.

When you have history like Natzi Germany, I am completely ok with not trusting the Goverment or a small board having complete control in deciding who lives and who dies. You are right though, it is a fundamental difference in beliefs. Some of the last few debates have made me very thankful that I live in the US and not Canada or Erupe. If socialism is the way you want to live, that's great. There are plenty of places for you. Please just don't try to for e America to become socialist.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

I also do not believe this board reflects the percentage of what most Americans believe. If you were to talk about Socialism in many places around here it would be treated like a four letter word.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Bonita, if you have private insurance you pay for it too....by increased premiums.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"mom2robbie" wrote:

Gloria, that is in Florida, last time I checked Florida is not a Canadian province as much as some Canadians would like. The most equipment that can be used in nursing homes in Canada is an IV.

Then maybe they should. Seems a little much to keep a coma patient or someone like that in a hospital. What do they do with coma patients that aren't brain dead? Do they keep them in the hospital the whole time?

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Then maybe they should. Seems a little much to keep a coma patient or someone like that in a hospital. What do they do with coma patients that aren't brain dead? Do they keep them in the hospital the whole time?

Yes they do. Nursing homes generally only have 1 registered nurse for each floor at any one time, a couple nursing assistants (RNA) and lots of Health Care Aids. Health Care Aids do stuff like feedings, bathing, personal care. And in case you are wondering this information is coming from friends and family who work in nursing homes. There is also a doctor on call for any medical ailments.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

This a big reason that health insurance should be private.

Why? So those who can afford the best coverage can queue jump? I don't think so. And that, IMO, is exactly where US health care has failed, big time. You think it's bad now? Just wait until those who can afford the best plans get treatment first, get to the head of the line, etc. Besides, no private plan in the world will cover a $1 milllion per year tab for life support. I have never even seen 'life support' equipment and services included in a health plan. That's because our PUBLIC system pays for it. It is only when it is deemed that the patient is brain dead and only being kept alive artificially with no hope of improvement that the onus for payment falls to the family. You can't compare a micro preemie to that situation. A micro preemie has the definite possibility of beating the odds, but needs help to breath and maintain temperature, heart rate etc while they gain the strength to do that on their own.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"mom2robbie" wrote:

Yes they do. Nursing homes generally only have 1 registered nurse for each floor at any one time, a couple nursing assistants (RNA) and lots of Health Care Aids. Health Care Aids do stuff like feedings, bathing, personal care. And in case you are wondering this information is coming from friends and family who work in nursing homes. There is also a doctor on call for any medical ailments.

It is different here. My mother is a nurse in a nursing home and there are many patients that are there for more than just to die.

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Why? So those who can afford the best coverage can queue jump? I don't think so. And that, IMO, is exactly where US health care has failed, big time. You think it's bad now? Just wait until those who can afford the best plans get treatment first, get to the head of the line, etc. Besides, no private plan in the world will cover a $1 milllion per year tab for life support. I have never even seen 'life support' equipment and services included in a health plan. That's because our PUBLIC system pays for it. It is only when it is deemed that the patient is brain dead and only being kept alive artificially with no hope of improvement that the onus for payment falls to the family. You can't compare a micro preemie to that situation. A micro preemie has the definite possibility of beating the odds, but needs help to breath and maintain temperature, heart rate etc while they gain the strength to do that on their own.

I am not sure how to go back and find it, but there has been on this very board people that have said that money should not be spent on micro preemies. Babies that are born at 24, 24, or 26 weeks and need months of care.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

On that with NHCR, you pay a penalty if you have a "cadillac" plan.

It's typically not a service that is ridered into a set plan. I've never seen it at least on our fully insured plans.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It is different here. My mother is a nurse in a nursing home and there are many patients that are there for more than just to die.

Nursing homes are not just a place to go to die. There are adults of all ages that need some form of assisted living. My mom was in her nursing home for 4.5 years before she finally passed and we had to pay to have her there, it was a sliding scale depending on her Canada Pension Plan. My dad was actually in palliative care in a hospital when he was dying of colon cancer. They kept him comfortable until the end, there was an extra bed in his room and we (my siblings and I) would stay overnight with him. It was my oldest sister that was there when he passed away.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

I also do not believe this board reflects the percentage of what most Americans believe. If you were to talk about Socialism in many places around here it would be treated like a four letter word.

I bet most of them like like their public police force and fire fighters and public schools and non-toll roads just fine. (To name a few of the horrors of socialism.)

I think I've mentioned this before, but my aunt who is the biggest opponent to "SOCIALISM!!!!!" on my FB page works for the sheriff's department. Taxes literally pay her paycheck. Hilarious.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It is different here. My mother is a nurse in a nursing home and there are many patients that are there for more than just to die.

I am not sure how to go back and find it, but there has been on this very board people that have said that money should not be spent on micro preemies. Babies that are born at 24, 24, or 26 weeks and need months of care.

Probably the same people who are against public health care.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Probably the same people who are against public health care.

I do not believe so.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I bet most of them like like their public police force and fire fighters and public schools and non-toll roads just fine. (To name a few of the horrors of socialism.)

I think I've mentioned this before, but my aunt who is the biggest opponent to "SOCIALISM!!!!!" on my FB page works for the sheriff's department. Taxes literally pay her paycheck. Hilarious.

I don't know anyone who considers law enforcement and fire fighters as socialism and not a basic function of government. That is what our taxes SHOULD be going for ... general safety and protection and infrastructure like roads and bridges ... not social programs.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I think I've mentioned this before, but my aunt who is the biggest opponent to "SOCIALISM!!!!!" on my FB page works for the sheriff's department. Taxes literally pay her paycheck. Hilarious.

Like I have said in the past, I think that balance is key. It is not necessary to be like "The Old West" and have no law and order at all. On the other hand, it is also not necessary to have the Government deciding who can live and who can die, control every aspect of your health care, keep a record of every conversation you have, among a variety of other extremes. I want the Government to provide law and order, reasonable laws and services in exchange for my tax dollars and otherwise stay out of my life. Unlike other who have posted, I do not trust the to ONLY decide to end life support for the brain dead. That line is so murky, it would not take long at all to become the **** Germany I was talking about earlier. It has happened before. What makes you think it would not happen again unless you took action to make sure the Government did not become powerful enough to do so. I have no interest in blindly giving the Government unchecked control over the country.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't know anyone who considers law enforcement and fire fighters as socialism and not a basic function of government. That is what our taxes SHOULD be going for ... general safety and protection and infrastructure like roads and bridges ... not social programs.

LOL The public police force and fire fighters are TOTALLY socialistic. Everyone who is able to pays in their taxes to the government and the government then makes this service available to everyone. It's not NOT socialism just because you think you hate socialism but you like those programs. If it were private sector, only those who could afford to pay out of pocket (or pay some sort of subscription service) would be able to get help from the police or the fire department. That's how the fire departments used to work, actually. Pretty awful. I agree with you that police departments and fire departments (and roads and schools and for that matter healthcare) should be a basic job of the government. It's still socialism, just a benefit of socialism that you happen to like. Smile

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I have a hard time making the leap from socialized medicine (even when an ethics committee is enabled in some cases to look at indefinitely continuing care for brain dead individuals) to **** Germany. It reminds of those commercials where your cable is messed up, and this leads to a whole string of misfortunates culminating in you ending up in the witness protection program. "Don't end up in the witness protection program. Call Direct TV (or whoever it is) today!"

ETA: I also wanted to add that if you think things are necessarily better under private insurance, I disagree. In the past (before Obamacare, oddly enough!) many insurance policies had a cap on maximum lifetime benefits. As you can imagine, having machines keep a brain dead individual alive is expensive. Sure, the insurance companies can't say "Pull the plug" but before Obama (thanks Obama!) they could say "Sorry, you've reached your max lifetime benefit so you can keep your loved one in the hospital, but we aren't paying for it." Which is kind of what people are saying here, right? If people want to prolong the "lives" of their family members who are braindead, they should pay for it themselves instead of having the tax payers pay for it. Of course, that may not be the case any more because of ACA. I assume those of you who think that people should be able to keep their loved ones on life support forever approve of that section of the ACA? Wink

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I have a hard time making the leap from socialized medicine (even when an ethics committee is enabled in some cases to look at indefinitely continuing care for brain dead individuals) to **** Germany. It reminds of those commercials where your cable is messed up, and this leads to a whole string of misfortunates culminating in you ending up in the witness protection program. "Don't end up in the witness protection program. Call Direct TV (or whoever it is) today!"

I do not think it is a huge stretch from a board being able say that someone can be taken off life support because we think their life has no value and it is costing to much to doing the same to children with birth defects and other handicapped people.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do not think it is a huge stretch from a board being able say that someone can be taken off life support because we think their life has no value and it is costing to much to doing the same to children with birth defects and other handicapped people.

I do. I think it's a pretty big stretch to go from no longer artificially keeping someone's body "alive" to actively killing a person who is able to stay alive without intervention. I don't think the slope is all that slippery.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I do. I think it's a pretty big stretch to go from no longer artificially keeping someone's body "alive" to actively killing a person who is able to stay alive without intervention. I don't think the slope is all that slippery.

A very premature baby is not able to stay alive without intervention. Many people who are in terrible accidents are not able to stay alive without intervention. Even I would have died a few weeks ago without medical intervention.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

A very premature baby is not able to stay alive without intervention. Many people who are in terrible accidents are not able to stay alive without intervention. Even I would have died a few weeks ago without medical intervention.

I'm not arguing against medical interventions. I'm saying that a brain dead person is already dead, we are just keeping their body "alive." They're not getting better. You and the guy in the accident and the premature baby all have some hope of getting better. Once it has been determined that there is no (medically sound) hope, there is a difference between no longer articificially keeping someone's body alive and going out and killing people becaus they "don't value their lives." I think that terminology is really offensive, actually, by the way. I don't think it is at all about "not valuing someone's life" but more about recognizing when that life is already gone and trying to give that person some last peace and dignity.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

While I might personally agree with you, I can not in any way imagine thinking it was anyone else's business to decide whether or not someone's life is worth living. It might start out as only the brain dead, but how long does it take to move onto to anyone who is terminal to anyone that is severally handicapped to anyone who is not blond haired and blue eyed?

This is not a slippery slope. It's a very, very high cliff and I have no doubt at all that no one will be jumping off of it. This is not natzi Germany and, if you've read the history about it, you'd know that this is a much different world now and there is no way that is never going to happen again.
And the fact is that other people *are* right now making those kinds of decisions. It’s judges because these kinds of disagreements, where there isn’t a so-called “death panel,” end up in courts. I'd actually rather have a team of independent doctors -- the people who know most about these conditions, the available treatments and comfort methods, and the prognoses -- making these decisions than uneducated judges -- who rely on briefs written mostly by biased parties -- and taking up precious court time that should be better used for other things.

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It seems to me that money and cost of care are exactly what this is about. Do you really want to come to come to a place where the Goverment comes in and says that your life is not worth living and you are costing too much? There is also nothing making this only for old brain dead people. That micro preemie? The baby that is born with Downs? (Sorry, I do not remember what we said was the pc term) Someone who was in a terrible accident like Joni Ericson Tada (sp)? That is just not a place that I think we ever should be.


That is not what is going to happen, and it’s not what is happening here. This is not “The Government.” It’s an independent panel of doctors. Yes, I believe that brain-dead bodies should be allowed to become fully dead-dead. If you want your micro-preemie saved at all costs, including a lifetime of disability and pain, then go for it, but that’s not what I would have wanted for my family or my child. And if the medical interventions aren’t working, then I think the humane thing to do is to let your child die peacefully. When I was pregnant each time, we were asked what we wanted if our child was born early, and I don’t understand why that isn’t a standard question for every pregnant woman everywhere. And no one is advocating killing children with Down syndrome or paraplegics, and that’s not going to happen. See “not a slippery slope” above.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

Superman

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"Spacers" wrote:

That is not what is going to happen, and it?s not what is happening here. This is not ?The Government.? It?s an independent panel of doctors. Yes, I believe that brain-dead bodies should be allowed to become fully dead-dead.

So what if they are wrong? The brain is an amazing thing. If he responds to them how do you know that it isn't real?

?Little by little, his consciousness is getting more and more. His looking, to everybody, to movies, to pictures, changed. He understands everything but cannot respond,? said Salasel, speaking to the media Friday at Rasouli?s lawyer?s office. Salasel and Rasouli have two children, Mojgan and son Mehran.

Hassan Rasouli's wife, Parichehr Salasel, and daughter Mojgan listen to their lawyer, Gary Hodder, explain their journey. Rasouli has been in a coma at Sunnybrook hospital for 3 years after contracting meningitis following surgery. Friday's ruling prevents doctors from being allowed to disconnect him from life support against the wishes of his family.

When the case first went to trial he was comatose, said Salasel, but even then his family had faith that his condition would improve.
?We were surprised and shocked, what doctors were seeking to get,? Mojgan said in an interview with the Star. ?For us, it was obvious ? that it was too early, premature diagnosis for him. He needed time. And he got the time. Everything changed. Even the doctors changed their diagnosis.?
Salasel said the passage of time brought new responses from Hassan.
?When I show him movies that he likes ? he smiled,? she says. ?Many signs I discovered in him that he is very aware. I asked him, ?Open your mouth. Stick out your tongue.? And he did, a lot of time.?

His recovery was enough that, on Jan. 23, 2012, his condition was upgraded to ?minimally conscious.?
?Today he? there, his life is within his body, in every single (one) of his veins,? said Mojgan. ?As I said three years ago, he?s not able to communicate as usual, but he will communicate with us through his eyes, through grabbing our hands. I always feel his warmness of his hands.?

Life support ruling: Family remains hopeful for Hassan Rasouli's continued recovery | Toronto Star

Supreme Court of Canada rightly rules to protect Hassan Rasouli: Editorial | Toronto Star

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do not think it is a huge stretch from a board being able say that someone can be taken off life support because we think their life has no value and it is costing to much to doing the same to children with birth defects and other handicapped people.

They are not saying the persons life has no value. The board is to determine what is best for the person in the coma. Is it better FOR THE PERSON IN THE COMA to keep them alive artificially(forgive my question marks are messed up). Not is it better for society, or the family, but is it better for that one individual person to be kept alive.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So what if they are wrong? The brain is an amazing thing. If he responds to them how do you know that it isn't real?

Life support ruling: Family remains hopeful for Hassan Rasouli's continued recovery | Toronto Star

Supreme Court of Canada rightly rules to protect Hassan Rasouli: Editorial | Toronto Star

Nobody is saying that it wont. All that is being said is that if the doctors and family disagree about treatment (or stopping it) then it goes to this independent comittee to decide. An independent committee of educated individuals who will be swayed by facts from both sides, and not rely on newspaper articles (which always have an agenda IMO) to make their decision.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"ftmom" wrote:

Nobody is saying that it wont. All that is being said is that if the doctors and family disagree about treatmeant (or stopping it) then it goes to this independent comittee to decide. An independent committee of educated individuals who will be swayed by facts from both sides, and not rely on newspaper articles (which always have an agenda IMO) to make their decision.

And I am not confident that this committee won't have their own agenda also. Especially when money is involved.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Spacers" wrote:

This is not a slippery slope. It's a very, very high cliff and I have no doubt at all that no one will be jumping off of it. This is not natzi Germany and, if you've read the history about it, you'd know that this is a much different world now and there is no way that is never going to happen again.
And the fact is that other people *are* right now making those kinds of decisions. It?s judges because these kinds of disagreements, where there isn?t a so-called ?death panel,? end up in courts. I'd actually rather have a team of independent doctors -- the people who know most about these conditions, the available treatments and comfort methods, and the prognoses -- making these decisions than uneducated judges -- who rely on briefs written mostly by biased parties -- and taking up precious court time that should be better used for other things.

That is not what is going to happen, and it?s not what is happening here. This is not ?The Government.? It?s an independent panel of doctors. Yes, I believe that brain-dead bodies should be allowed to become fully dead-dead. If you want your micro-preemie saved at all costs, including a lifetime of disability and pain, then go for it, but that?s not what I would have wanted for my family or my child. And if the medical interventions aren?t working, then I think the humane thing to do is to let your child die peacefully. When I was pregnant each time, we were asked what we wanted if our child was born early, and I don?t understand why that isn?t a standard question for every pregnant woman everywhere. And no one is advocating killing children with Down syndrome or paraplegics, and that?s not going to happen. See ?not a slippery slope? above.

You know what the 'funny' thing is? Contrary to what some may think, that it's a bunch of Kevorkians on this quasijudicial panel, it is actually NOT made up of doctors, and they are NOT hospital staff. I guess there goes Gloria's idea that it's a way for hospitals to save money, by killing off the ones on life support.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

"mom2robbie" wrote:

Nursing homes are not just a place to go to die.

I missed this earlier. I was responding to the below comment. I can see re-reading it that I read it wrong the first time, thinking she had said that nursing homes were where people go to die, not be kept artificially alive. I apologise as I must have been reading too fast.

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I don't know about nursing homes in the US, but in Canada you will not find a patient on life support in a nursing home or palliative care facility. Palliative care is where people go to die, not to be kept artificially alive.
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

You know what the 'funny' thing is? Contrary to what some may think, that it's a bunch of Kevorkians on this quasijudicial panel, it is actually NOT made up of doctors, and they are NOT hospital staff. I guess there goes Gloria's idea that it's a way for hospitals to save money, by killing off the ones on life support.

I don't care WHO they are, unless it could be proven they are abusive or something, no one will have someone's best interests at heart more than their own family.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I firmly believe that it should be between the family and the doctors, with no government intervention.

I also think this is another blaring example of why every person should have a living will. My family will never have to guess what I would want, I have had a living will in place for a very long time

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't care WHO they are, unless it could be proven they are abusive or something, no one will have someone's best interests at heart more than their own family.

Not really true. Too many emotions. We will tend to go with what makes us feel better not necessarily what is best for the patient.

As is pointed out, this already kind of exists. If you don't have dollar caps (which are going away due to ACA) then I highly doubt your private insurance will pay for non medically necessary ongoing care. If you are not progressing they will stop covering your stay and you would need to be discharged.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"Jessica80" wrote:

Not really true. Too many emotions. We will tend to go with what makes us feel better not necessarily what is best for the patient.

As is pointed out, this already kind of exists. If you don't have dollar caps (which are going away due to ACA) then I highly doubt your private insurance will pay for non medically necessary ongoing care. If you are not progressing they will stop covering your stay and you would need to be discharged.

Yes there are emotions as there should be when making a decision to let someone die. It should be the family that makes that decision.

I already said that I would have no problem if they were moved to a less expensive facility like a nursing home, or even home care. It seems kind of a double whammy to say that in Canada they can't be moved to a cheaper facility but then they are going to pull the plug because they don't want to pay for more expensive care.

Pages