Death Panels? It’s a tough call
on 02/19/2011 at 06:43 PM
I have children and sadly I have jeld my 10 day old daughter as she beathed her last. To me no one here is correst, If the child is in a vegative state then there is no pain allthough I doubt anyone knows what parts of the brain still function. My daughter was given a huge dose of barbiturates to keep her alive so we could say goodbye and I suspect and am thankfull for , to make a painless end. The parents should have tried for private home care and good narcotics to erase ant potential suffering, if they truly believed the child was mentaly active then put their hands in own pocket it is so easy to be in denial in this situation, I was about the only one in my family who was sort of realistic) dont forget it is not government money here but taxpayers. As for the asinine argument nationalised healthcare is crap and has to fail, so far the Canadian one is in better shape that Europe. As for the point that americans loose their houses with an unexpected health bill and no insurance well mostly they decided to have a bigger nome and car instead of small home and health insurance, also if taxes did not have to pay for thieving government and union perks they could all afford it.
Posted by Chris Edwards
02/19/2011 at 08:42 PM
I read this yesterday. The medical and judicial decisions were both stupid. Do the tracheotomy and let the parents take the kid home.
I’ve been to two funerals for infants. Heart wrenching is putting it mildly. I remember when my Boy Scout troop leader lost his infant son. Just remembering such a small casket brings tears to my eyes.
Chris, you’re probably right when you say:
As for the point that americans loose their houses with an unexpected health bill and no insurance well mostly they decided to have a bigger nome and car instead of small home and health insurance, also if taxes did not have to pay for thieving government and union perks they could all afford it.
But, I doubt that many Americans lose their homes over health bills.
But you are correct in that too many buy too much home. My next-door-neighbors lost theirs because they bought it based on two incomes. One of them lost their job, and they lost the home.
Back when we were shopping for a home the banks kept telling us we could afford thrice our annual income. We ended up assuming a mortgage on a house worth 1.5 times my then-annual income. Now I could pay it off tomorrow, but then I wouldn’t have a savings cushion for emergencies; new furnace? new water line? fix the car?
Or those pesky health bills. Insured or not, co-pays, deductibles, etc can still add up. I’ll keep paying the mortgage (only 3.5 years left), and keep socking money into savings for emergencies.
Without kids, I’m not sure I should even have an opinion on this. Or maybe that’s the dispassionate perspective you need here? Who knows. You’d need the wisdom of Solomon to make the right decision here.
You could make the case that the parents are being selfish or at least blinded by grief in wanting to take the child home to die - risking more suffering to the child… but I don’t really care for government making these sort of decisions. There’s just no good answer.
Jumping in with both feet - the parents and the doctors are reconciled on the baby dying - that is not the issue - clog it up with he said/she said all you want - the parents simply want to take the baby home to die. There is a reason - having been in that situation (number 3 child never left the hospital after being born - 2.5 days, renal failure/prematurity) - My older 2 children never saw him - two reasons, lousy ex and they did not allow children into NICUs then - so even 26+ years later - he is nothing to them at all (increased as ex would not allow them to go with us back to OH for the funeral - as it was ‘his’ visitation time - even though he’d had them for those extra days while I was in the hospital and he was dying). These parents probably just want the chance for them, aunts and uncles, brother and grandparents to be able to hold the baby and say good bye privately and without the sterile, institutional setting controlled by the healthcare professionals even to the bitter end. And slowly dying rather than choking to death on schedule does seem to be a bit more humane - but that’s just me.
The underlying problem is that the medical profession in many cases take the charge without consideration of the future/prognosis etc. They create the very messes and then have to figure a way out. Which they either don’t or do badly.
Many, many cases are like this - in our #3 child case - all the extreme medical intervention did little to change the outcome - he had a 98% chance of dying and he did. Decades later we were back in the same situation (extreme medical) with #4 child - again a facing a terminal outcome - and again extreme medical intervention (burn). This time everyone did it right (combat medics are great) and Shriners stepped in and pulled out all the stops and he is still alive.
But in both cases - the medical people started the process without asking us - and then we were required to deal with the next step and the next one. We (the parents) are the ones left to deal with consequences - forever. The ethics, the humanity, the morals and the emotions are not keeping up with the technology.
Then we add one other entity which has no heart, no soul - simply a bottom line - the insurance company.
The better fix for America would be to go backward - less insurance, not more. It is just another ‘panel’, just another hand in the pot (which is part of the reason costs have/continue to go up).
A person/healthcare is not a car. We are not protecting with ‘health insurance’ against hurting someone else out in public - We are betting against ourselves (while being lead to believe we are ‘protecting’ ourselves). And paying a little or a lot - with absolutely no control as to whether we get the results we want or need - when it comes to payout time. It takes control away from the patient and doctor - adds needless people into the mix. At an extremely emotional time. And all these people need to get paid (think costs here).
And now the whole thing may be made worse by adding another hand in the pot, another ‘panel’ to make decisions and more layers of bureaucracies (all needing to be paid) - No, NO, HELL NO!
Let medical decisions be truly, really between the doctor and the patient - leave the insurance company and more importantly the government out of it. [And I haven’t even mentioned how LAWYERS have mucked up this whole mess too - which once again adds costs]
That will bring the costs - just by cutting out more of the ‘middle men’ - And anyone who believes that adding to the layers of institutions and bureaucracies involved with health care will bring down the costs - is purely and simply lying.
And yes, sad as it sounds - in a free market - those that have money get more. But Shriners, St Jude and other places prove that there are truly caring people who simply want to even the playing field - for all. It does exist now.
We should encourage more of the Shriner/St Jude solutions and less of the Big Insurance/Big Tort/Big Gov solutions - I’ve seen and experienced the first and knows it works. Look to the DMV, IRS or Fannie & Freddie to ask yourself if the latter might even ‘work’ at all or lower costs or be beneficial to anyone other than politicians.
Jumping in with both feet is exactly what I’m hoping people will do. And not having children does not preclude you from having an opinion. It might give you a different perspective, but we don’t play that “lone moral high ground” Cindy Sheehan shit here. As far as I’m concerned, there are no perfect answers here, and that’s what makes it such an excellent topic for discussion.
Wardmama, you are accurate as usual, a question, the Shriners in Canada have to drive kids to the USA for burn treatment, (hope yours is getting better!!) what happens to that under obamacare?? from what I read it will be stopped?????
Posted by Chris Edwards
02/20/2011 at 01:38 PM
Also reading this, if the parents believe the child is still feeling and emoting then why would they want ti inflict more pain? it looks like both parties have taken a giant leap, in opposite directions, from reality and sit there entrenched, if they are that sure, I doubt if they had rationaly talked to a doctor near the start they could have had their child die at home, me, I wanted the best for mine and trusted the medics to advise me and do the best for mine and that is what they did, I was however co-operative and could talk to them with intelligence.
Posted by Chris Edwards
02/20/2011 at 01:52 PM
Of course Chris - Shriners has since 1922 has been providing orthopedic and burn care - without charge. Yes, they apply to the insurance companies - but most of what they apply for is denied. I know since our son required Integra (artificial skin) and Cultured Epicell Application (his own skin grown in a lab into sheets to reapply after the Integra set) - our insurance company denied a lot his burn care - If Shriners had not covered (thanks to millions of very nice Americans who donated) we would be up the creek with the bills (but I doubt that Shriners would have stepped out - in that case - as it was over a million dollars). And I am sure since Shriners is both American ingenuity and charitable compassion at work (and working well - there are 22 Shriners hospitals)under Obamacare, it’s time seems numbered - Obama seems like someone who would kill it.
There is a lot involved with this particular case - first while living in Canada - these are people born in a foreign land - thus have a different view of ‘professionals’ - they tend not to question at all, just shake their head yes - without even (possibly) understanding and as I said, this baby is terminal, in an ICU. We never got to hold our son (as it was Christmas - the morgue was closed) - and as a parent I do understand that desire.
You are right with the entrenched comment - but it comes down to control - Who should be in control in the case of a terminal child - the parents, the doctor(s) or the State? And this request which is for less (release of child home to die) - seems to be an overkill (sorry, a bit tacky) on the part of the Doctor(s) and State/Court.
Release the baby - let the family say goodbye in private at home - let them hold him and see him as a real child - then bury him. What good does it do the Doctor(s)/State to deny the parents this - other than simple control.
More Control, More Power is not something I ever want to give to the State/Government most especially in terms of my medical care or my children.
Who makes them RIGHT or Correct at all? Are their Values, my Values? Their Beliefs, My Beliefs - and what makes theirs more Right, more Important, More Correct than mine? I will never, ever see healthcare as One-size-fits-all. Why must I be required to acquiesce to their decisions - Oh yeah because some politician decades ago - decided that all healthcare should be via Insurance Companies and now want to make it even worse by making it via - Government. Why isn’t between me and my healthcare provider seen as the ideal anymore - what should be and sacrosanct? Why should any Insurance Company, Lawyer and most importantly Politician and/or Bureaucrat be involved at all?
Like so many things - we should be going backward, cutting and allowing more and more FREEDOM - not going into that great KNOWN of whatever ism you want to apply to it - We know where it leads - even among the best systems - Massive Government Control and Death and poverty and hopelessness - All very anti-American to say the least.
Throughout the entire argument on the subject at the other blog, it seems to be taken for granted by many that doctors are wrong from the get go. Which isn’t to say many aren’t. But the idea that doctors can’t seem to call the shots correctly from the start seems to be like a template. Doctors = Wrong.
I read everything on the subject at the links and I must say, I’m conflicted. There really isn’t a perfect answer here, but I do think there’s a bit of wishful thinking going on.
The auntie thinks she’s certain the baby responds to her touch. Considering all the reported findings, that seems unlikely. But she wants to believe it.
And the father wants to join the baby in death because he thinks life is over for him?
Oh great. Which would leave his wife and surviving son exactly where?Since they had a daughter who died of the same illness, or very near the same, they must have been told (but who knows?) that one of the parents carried a gene, something, that would come back and bite em again.
So now they’ve lost two, sadly. But anyone want to bet that they’ll try again. They may get lucky since one is still alive and well so far as we know.
Life really is a gift, not certain I’d like the govt. getting involved in this kind of thing BUT .... wow. This is a tough one. Why in fact and it only now occurs to me, with the condition this child was in, couldn’t they have done what’s done so often with patients who are terminally ill and in pain. Increased dosages of pain killing meds until death occurs? Then the argument comes back again to, who decides? Some court or govt. agency? Or family?
02/21/2011 at 10:02 AM
