Joseph Maraachli with his father, Moe
Posted on 03/04/2011 5:41:50 AM PST by wagglebee
Joseph Maraachli with his father, Moe
March 3, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The case of baby Joseph started out fairly clear, but as time has passed many people have interpreted it as something it is not.
Joseph Maraachli was born without any problems. Then in May 2010, the Maraachli family brought Joseph to the Children’s Hospital in Detroit because he was unable to breath. After several weeks of treatment, Joseph went home with his family in good health.
In October 2010, Joseph experienced a similar problem with breathing. His parents were driving home from Toronto and stopped at the hospital in Ingersoll, Ontario. From there he was transferred to the Children’s Hospital in London, where he remains.
Who has the right to decide?
The baby Joseph case concerns the question of who has the right to decide what is in the best interests of baby Joseph.
The hospital decided to withdraw the ventilator from Joseph, which would result in death, likely occurring within a short period of time. Joseph would die while gasping for air.
The family decided that they wanted to bring Joseph home to die while in their care, in the same way that they cared for their first child who died of a similar condition more than 8 years ago. The family asked that a tracheotomy be done to allow Joseph to breath on his own, so they could bring him home.
The issue is, who has the right to decide? Does the hospital and doctor, or does the family have the right to decide on how to care for their terminally ill child?
Not about futile care
This case is different from most of the similar cases because it is not about a family requesting treatment that is futile, burdensome or extra-ordinary.
The family is not asking for a portable ventilator to be set up in their home, even though this would be a reasonable option. They are not asking for in-home nursing care to be provided. They did not ask for experimental treatment plans.
The family only asked to bring Joseph home; but to do so would require Joseph to be capable of breathing on his own. This is why they requested that a tracheotomy be done. A tracheotomy is not a difficult procedure; it is not futile, burdensome or extra-ordinary.
Not about euthanasia
Some people have suggested that to withdraw the ventilator from baby Joseph would constitute an act of euthanasia. This is not true.
Euthanasia is an action or omission that directly and intentionally causes the death of another person with the intention of relieving suffering. Euthanasia is a form of homicide.
If the ventilator is withdrawn from baby Joseph, he is likely to die, but he may survive. If he dies, his death would be caused by his medical condition and not because of a direct and intentional action or omission. Even if the intention is to cause his death, the reality is that his death is not direct because it is caused by his medical condition and therefore is not euthanasia.
The precedent set by the baby Joseph case affects everyone
If I have a massive stroke, I am not competent, I am unable to swallow effectively and I have not indicated in any way what I would want in such a circumstance and my wife would like an intervention done to allow me to be effectively fed, but the doctor says no, what will happen?
The precedents that have been set by the baby Joseph case and similar cases would force my wife to hire a high-priced lawyer to defend her right to provide reasonable care for me. She would face a well-paid lawyer who is financed by the hospital.
If the Consent and Capacity Board sided with the hospital she would be forced to appeal the decision to the Superior Court, which would cost an excessive amount of money, simply to defend her right to have basic care provided for me.
In the courts, legal precedents, like the baby Joseph case, would be used to convince the judge that the decision of the doctor and the hospital is correct.
We are all at risk, unless decisions like those made in the baby Joseph case are reversed, or unless the legislation in the Province of Ontario is not amended.
I continue to support the plight of baby Joseph and the Maraachli family and I continue to hope that the family and the hospital can achieve a mutual agreement. Maybe Joseph should be sent home and cared for on a portable ventilator?
See Baby Joseph Facebook page.
The family decided that they wanted to bring Joseph home to die while in their care, in the same way that they cared for their first child who died of a similar condition more than 8 years ago. The family asked that a tracheotomy be done to allow Joseph to breath on his own, so they could bring him home.
The issue is, who has the right to decide? Does the hospital and doctor, or does the family have the right to decide on how to care for their terminally ill child?
Exactly, the state wants to take control of Baby Joseph because they think that death is better for him.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
In this case, I do not see any chance that Baby Joseph will undergo a miraculous recovery. The controversy, as I see it, is whether his death should be hastened in the hospital, or allowed to occur naturally at home. There is no logical reason why a tracheotomy can't be done so that Baby Joseph can be brought home to die comfortably instead of in the sterile, cold, unfriendly environment of the hospital.
The only reason that I can think of is that the state wants to exert as much control as possible.
Exactly right.
The parents have gone through this tragedy before; therefore, they know what to expect. It isn’t like the hospital doctors don’t think they can go through this alone. The parents should be able to take their little one home, love him for the time he has left on this earth. Not only will Baby Joseph die hearing his parent’s voices but the parents can say good-bye in their own personal way. They deserve that much. IMHO
Thank you for posting this. It provides clarification for a lot of the objections I’ve heard raised.
Could the parents not pay for the tracheotomy themselves?
“”I have not indicated in any way what I would want in such a circumstance””
I hope no one here will put themselves in such a position. Health Care Directives are easy enough to do. We needed to prepare new ones as our old ones had expiration dates and we had moved. I found our new state approved directive online and printed them; signed and witnessed and filed away where they can be retrieved easily and given to a doctor and/or hospital.
Of course, all of it becomes moot if the decision is taken out of our hands ala obamacare!
The story of Baby Joseph is heartrending in many aspects, and I pray God's help and peace for him and his family.
This is the face of socialized medicine.
It depends on your definition of “ordinary care” vs. “extraordinary care,” something that can be difficult to define. You state that a tracheotomy is “not extra-ordinary,” on what do you base this?
You also open a wider question - where does the line lie for a family to decide on care that is considered medically futile? What about the rights of the medical worker to refuse to initiate care they feel is medically futile? (Yes, I am aware that in *this* case, there is disagreement about whether the care is futile or not. I am also aware that I have no clear answer for the question, and I am curious if you feel you do have a clear answer.)
Ordinary and extraordinary medical care has been pretty well defined. Of course there are debates, but trachotomies have NEVER been considered extraordinary care (the fact is that this is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures in the world).
You also open a wider question - where does the line lie for a family to decide on care that is considered medically futile?
Many states have stripped this right from families.
What about the rights of the medical worker to refuse to initiate care they feel is medically futile?
I wouldn't consider that a right.
Baby Joseph's parents want to take him home, they realize that he is likely to die within a relatively short period of time, they are their parents and this is their RIGHT.
However, to do this, he needs a tracheotomy, this is a routine, simple and inexpensive procedure, but the hospital is refusing.
If you know what you’re doing, you can do a trach with a penknife and half the body of a pen. In about one minute.
The family has a new attorney who seems to
be setting a very different tone.
Will post more in a bit.
Mama Grizzlies unite! Baby Joseph’s new attorney sets new tone.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/03/17487251.html
As to your statement "this is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures in the world," All I find is this which indicates tracheotomy was known, but far from common. The earliest known procedure is actually skull trephination, for which evidence is found in the Neolithic period, 7000 years ago. (And I don't know that's considered "ordinary" care, either.)
I absolutely agree it is their right to take him home. The question is whether it's their right to have the hospital perform a tracheotomy. And as I pointed out, they could take him home with an endotracheal tube in place, and an ambubag.
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.