Posted on 02/27/2010 12:08:46 PM PST by wagglebee
WINNIPEG, Manitoba, February 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Canadian doctor has stated in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press that the controversy surrounding the fate of Baby Isaiah May is ignoring the fundamental issue at stake - the status of the child as a human being.
Dr. Joel B. Zivot, an associate professor in the department of anesthesiology, University of Manitoba, and the director of the intensive care unit, cardiac sciences program, at St. Boniface General Hospital in Winnipeg, said, "What has been reported is information that misdirects the public from the fundamental issues.
"Although the issue before the court is the degree of brain injury incurred by Isaiah, I realize that it is Isaiah's status as a human being that is on trial."
Isaiah was born in the Rocky Mountain House Hospital after a difficult 40-hour delivery. On Oct. 24th, the boy was airlifted to Edmonton's Stollery Children's Hospital because Isaiah's umbilical cord had been wrapped around his neck, resulting in severe oxygen deprivation. He was then placed on a ventilator in the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit.
The hospital declared Isaiah “brain dead” shortly thereafter and clinical director Dr. Ernest Z. Phillipos informed the parents of his decision to take Isaiah off the ventilator.
The parents, Isaac and Rebecka May, took the hospital and Alberta Health Services to court, seeking a 90-day injunction against the order.
On January 27, Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Michelle Crighton ruled that Isaiah should remain on life support until February 19th for further assessment by medical experts.
Last Friday Justice Crighton again decided to give the parents of the infant more time to assemble medical experts to review their son's condition, who against all odds seems to be thriving.
"He's doing very well. There hasn't been very many improvements over the past few weeks but he's still growing. He's over 12 pounds and he just looks like a perfect little boy," Isaiah's father Isaac told reporters.
Dr. Zivot said his own inquiry into Isaiah's case has confirmed the parents' assessment of their son's condition and chances for life, but has also raised the question of the moral obligation Isaiah's doctors have toward his care.
"In my investigation of Isaiah, I learned that he had gained weight, moved and breathed occasionally on his own. His photos displayed an infant who by all accounts seemed normal in appearance apart from some paraphernalia of the critical care trade," Dr. Zivot observed.
"In contemporary thought," Dr. Zivot continued, "once born, humanity is considered automatic and should not be revoked by disability. The yardstick of being a human being is set too high for Isaiah. Discussion on the prediction of degree of disability, including mental capacity, is not relevant as are counter-arguments based on the physical appearance of normalcy."
"All that really matters, to be blunt, is if Isaiah is dead or alive."
Contact Information:
Gene Zwozdesky, Alberta Minister of Health
208 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-3665
Fax: 780 415-0961
E-mail: health.minister@gov.ab.ca
Stollery Children's Hospital
8440 112 Street Northwest
Edmonton, AB T6G 2B7
General Phone Line: (780) 407-8822
Alberta Health Services - Complaints
Mail Slot 57
11111 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 0L4
Toll-free: 1-877-753-2170
Telephone: 780-342-8080
Fax: 1-877-871-4340
Dr. Ernest Z. Phillipos, Director of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Stollery Children's Hospital
Phone: 780-407-1305
Fax: 780-407-3030
E-mail: ernest.phillipos@albertahealthservices.ca
Office of Premier Ed Stelmach
Room 307, Legislature Building
10800 - 97th Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 2B6
Phone: (780) 427 2251
Fax: (780) 427 1349
E-mail: premier@gov.ab.ca
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Baby Isaiah’s Case Part of a National Trend Say Advocates for the Disabled
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012009.html
Young Canadian Parents Fighting Hospital to Save Their Baby's Life
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011910.html
And yet the Canadian death panel wants to declare Baby Isaiah "brain dead" and kill him.
Pro-Life Ping
Canada Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
dry foot
In the case of most hospitals with ICU Capability,
in the case of a death declaration while on life supports,
one of the declaring Physicians should be
a Neurologist or Neurosurgeon,
to rigorously apply appropriate criteria for establishing “Brain Death”
This rather simplifies the question
and keeps it quite local
If the Baby was breathing on its own,
it is not “Brain Dead” by any criteria
BTTT
Thank you for posting and the ping. I had not heard about this case.
I think you misread the quote, the doctor is on Baby Isaiah’s side.
I’ll re-read that and see if I can translate that last sentence, then.
OK. I think I see where he’s coming from. It wasn’t very clear to me at first.
I’ll have the mods remove that post.
Dr. Joel B. Zivot, an associate professor in the department of anesthesiology, University of Munich, and the director of the intensive care unit, cardiac sciences program, at St. Boniface General Hospital in Munich, said, "What has been reported is information that misdirects the public from the fundamental issues.
"Although the issue before the court is the degree of brain injury incurred by Isaiah, I realize that it is Isaiah's status as a human being that is on trial." Isaiah was born in the Regensburg Mountain House Hospital after a difficult 40-hour delivery. On Oct. 24th, the boy was airlifted to Munich's Stollery Children's Hospital because Isaiah's umbilical cord had been wrapped around his neck, resulting in severe oxygen deprivation. He was then placed on a ventilator in the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit.
The hospital declared Isaiah “not worthy of life” shortly thereafter and clinical director Dr. Ernest Z. Phillipos informed the parents of his decision to take Isaiah off the ventilator.
The parents, Isaac and Rebecka May, took the hospital and Munich Health Services to court, seeking a 90-day injunction against the order.
On January 27, Munich Court of Justice Michelle Crighton ruled that Isaiah should remain on life support until February 19th for further assessment by medical experts.
Last Friday Justice Crighton again decided to give the parents of the infant more time to assemble medical experts to review their son's condition, who against all odds seems to be thriving.
"He's doing very well. There hasn't been very many improvements over the past few weeks but he's still growing. He's over 12 pounds and he just looks like a perfect little boy," Isaiah's father Isaac told reporters.
Dr. Zivot said his own inquiry into Isaiah's case has confirmed the parents' assessment of their son's condition and chances for life, but has also raised the question of the moral obligation Isaiah's doctors have toward his care.
"In my investigation of Isaiah, I learned that he had gained weight, moved and breathed occasionally on his own. His photos displayed an infant who by all accounts seemed normal in appearance apart from some paraphernalia of the critical care trade," Dr. Zivot observed.
"In contemporary thought," Dr. Zivot continued, "once born, humanity is considered automatic and should not be revoked by disability. The yardstick of being a human being is set too high for Isaiah. Discussion on the prediction of degree of disability, including mental capacity, is not relevant as are counter-arguments based on the physical appearance of normalcy."
"All that really matters, to be blunt, is if Isaiah is dead or alive."
bump!
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
The good doctor was very wrong in one aspect: the child was human from the moment of his conception (not at birth).
Very true.
That line stuck out at me as well. Once born? Of course he is right. That is prevailing thought as sick and evil as it may be.
Another way of looking at this in light of the current health care debate is whether the family has enough money to personally pay for artificially sustaining his life, or whether limited public resources/dollars, (in this public medical care system,) should be allocated to sustain his life over other potential uses of those dollars - such as fixing a lame child's leg. These are real hard choices that have to be made and become harder as resources diminish due to debt and higher personnel costs due to benefits. But shouldn't the public should have the right to decide where and how its public resources (taxes) are expended?
In the United States the current question could be whether private insurance should pay for it and whether everyone in that insurance pool should experience a 30% increase in their premiums to pay for it. In the US case, we generally do pay for it and do, as a consequence, experience the rate increases. The coverage and limitation depend on the contract (policy) and local state laws requiring certain benefits. But then the public wants no preexisting conditions, no limits on benefits, etc. and we complain when our premiums climb.(I paid medical claims for many years in my early days and premature infant costs were amongst the highest medical care claims.)
We just have to understand that every decision has a (unintended) consequence. Our system does not guarantee equal societal benefits to all, it ensures equal treatment under the law and the protection of our natural rights to life, liberty and property from government by the whole. Does a right to life include a right to demand public (or private insurance) resources to artificially sustain that life? Does a right to life include a right to demand shelter, food and medical care from the public at large? If so, is that a sustainable system? Can we afford that without bringing the economy down and elevating mediocrity.
Oh I thought you meant the “once born” comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.