Skip to comments.
BREAKING: Feeding tube restored to immigrant woman unable to pay Jesuit hospital
LifeSiteNews ^
| 3/11/11
| Peter Smith
Posted on 03/11/2011 3:23:18 PM PST by wagglebee
![](http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/Nyirahabiyambere_fp-240x161.jpg)
Rachel Nyirahabiyambere and one of her grandchildren.
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) A Rwandan immigrant woman and survivor of the horrors of the 1994 genocide who had her feeding tube removed because a U.S. Catholic-affiliated hospital deemed her care too expensive, apparently will not die of starvation and dehydration thanks to a court order and the efforts of her children.
Rachel Nyirahabiyambere, a 58-year-old grandmother and refugee from war-torn Rwanda, had been denied food and water since Feb. 19 after her feeding tube was removed by order of her court-appointed guardian. Now 21 days later and still alive, another court has ordered Rachels feeding tube reinserted at the request of her familys new legal counsel.
Rachels family has sought legal assistance from the Alliance Defense Fund, which has intervened in the case, against Rachels court-appointed guardian, who was appointed at the behest of Georgetown University Hospital.
The New York Times first broke the plight of Rachel Nyirahabiyambere, a Rwandan grandmother, who once had to survive in the jungle in order to escape the genocide and later the violence in the refugee camps. Rachels sons immigrated to the United States as refugees, where they worked their way up from menial jobs to obtain masters degrees.
Rachels sons brought her to the United States, where she found work that gave her health care benefits, but she lost those benefits by leaving her job to follow her oldest son to Virginia and help take care of his grandchildren. Generally, U.S. health insurance is employer-based, and not portable for an individual that switches jobs.
Rachel was thus without insurance when suffered a severely disabling stroke. She was cared for by Georgetown University Hospital without remuneration for eight months, until the hospital convinced a court in December to remove guardianship from the family to a lawyer recommended by the hospitals attorney.
Andrea Sloan took over as Rachels guardian, and removed Rachel to a nursing home in Millersville, Maryland. The Times reported that the hospital then offered to pay for Rachels nursing home care, but had never extended this offer to Rachels family before Sloan took over as guardian.
Sloan then decided to remove Rachels feeding tube on the basis that Rachel was consuming too many health care resources to stay alive.
She explained her reasoning for having the feeding tube removed to the Times in an e-mail: Generically speaking, what gives any one family or person the right to control so many scarce health care resources in a situation where the prognosis is poor, and to the detriment of others who may actually benefit from them?
Developing
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; concerntrolls; euthanasia; feedingtube; immigration; moralabsolutes; nyirahabiyambere; onlyforaliens; prolife; refugees; rwanda; terrischiavo; terryschivo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 321-333 next last
To: La Lydia; BykrBayb
You are a rude and vicious poster.
121
posted on
03/12/2011 4:43:16 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
To: La Lydia
I’m shocked that anyone would say something like that.
122
posted on
03/12/2011 4:59:11 AM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: metmom
Thanks for the ping. I can’t say I’m sorry.
123
posted on
03/12/2011 5:00:39 AM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: DJ MacWoW; La Lydia; lastchance; BykrBayb; wagglebee
You are a rude and vicious poster.****************************
I'm stunned at the level of cruelty La Lydia has shown on this thread. It's unacceptable.
124
posted on
03/12/2011 5:10:36 AM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: trisham; La Lydia; lastchance; BykrBayb; wagglebee
La Lydia is a perpetual nasty poster. This isn’t a one time deal. I don’t call people names on here. It’s in the rules. Some follow them and some don’t. Ever.
125
posted on
03/12/2011 5:22:14 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
To: DJ MacWoW; trisham
That’s been noticed by more people than just you.
126
posted on
03/12/2011 5:34:22 AM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: BykrBayb
“Your problem is that I am honest. “
Finally, a post from you that doesn’t try to attribute ill-will towards this patient that was never expressed.
You are learning to be honest. Practice makes perfect.
“I havent changed my point. “
Perhaps, but I asked you haven’t answered the question, which was “Are there limits and should there be limits to charity?”
“My point is still the same as it was when you first asked.”
No, when I first asked, you had no point, other than to articulate a personal attack - that really was pointless because I was not the poster you thought I was.
“You can change the subject, throw in strawman arguments, and play childish games, but my point will remain the same, and it will continue to be true.”
I pointed out a moral quandary - one that is very relevant to this issue.
It is not a strawman argument, and the question “Are there limits to charity” is a relevant one which you either refuse or can’t answer.
It is a difficult question to be sure - because there is no good answer. It is still a relevant question that hospitals and society must answer.
To: metmom; trisham
128
posted on
03/12/2011 5:56:54 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
To: RFEngineer
No, you did not point out a moral quandary that actually exists. You asked if I could see the same nonexistent moral quandary that you see in God’s commandment not to murder. I answered your question. No, I don’t see it. Throwing in a strawman asking me to speculate about your limited capacity for charity does nothing to address the issue at hand. But then, it isn’t designed to, is it? If I answer your silly question, will you get back on topic? I doubt it, but what the heck, here goes. Yes, I do think that some people are limited in their willingness to be charitable. Now, back to the topic at hand. I still don’t think there should be a death penalty for failure to pay a debt. And I still don’t see how your approach to limiting charity could ever justify such a position.
129
posted on
03/12/2011 6:12:39 AM PST
by
BykrBayb
(Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
To: BykrBayb; DJ MacWoW; trisham
You don't need shoes, you need some critical READING skills. And I don't apologize for defending myself. My remarks never mentioned anything about allowing this woman to die. My remarks have focused on who should pay for her care. Here is what I said:
"I dont have anything against this woman, and I certainly dont want her to die. But her family should be held responsible for her medical costs...." I also wrote: "When immigrants sponsor in their relatives, as this woman's family did, they are required to sign an Affidavit of Support accepting legal responsibility for financially supporting the sponsored immigrant(s) until they become U.S. citizens or can be credited with 40 quarters of work. The hospital can and should sue the relatives for her costs. The Affidavit of Support usually requires the sponsor to pay medical bills out of pocket."
How is that vitriolic? My first comment was that I don't want her to die. The second comment is merely a statement of fact and law. Please explain to me how you interpreted those comments to mean that I think the woman should be starved and dehydrated to death?
Poor ol' Lastchance didn't bother to read what I wrote, either. He just immediately went into self-pity mode and then insinuated I wanted to kill HIM! Why would any of you just automatically assume that someone on a conservative forum would in any way ever advocate death, like Lastchance did, and like you did, without even bothering to read their comments? Why would you automatically assume the worst; who, after all, is vicious and nasty?
To: BykrBayb
“You asked if I could see the same nonexistent moral quandary that you see in Gods commandment not to murder.”
I did not ask this.
“Throwing in a strawman asking me to speculate about your limited capacity for charity does nothing to address the issue at hand. “
This is not what I asked.
“Yes, I do think that some people are limited in their willingness to be charitable. “
Not what I asked.
“I still dont think there should be a death penalty for failure to pay a debt.”
With whom do you disagree about this? It is not me.
“And I still dont see how your approach to limiting charity could ever justify such a position.”
What approach did I advocate? I don’t recall advocating for anything.
Again, you need to be honest in your discussion, otherwise you are arguing with yourself.
Honesty....you had a fleeting brush with it last night, but I see a nights rest has you returning to your previous dishonesty on this discussion
If you wish to debate me, don’t debate yourself. If you just wish to debate yourself, have at it - but don’t include me - I can’t participate.
To: lastchance
Courtesy ping to post 130, because the rude person posting about you doesn’t know enough to ping you. Or maybe it thinks you’re not worthy.
132
posted on
03/12/2011 6:33:58 AM PST
by
BykrBayb
(Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
To: RFEngineer; La Lydia
You two should pair off. Neither of you can stand by your own long held position against the right to life. You poke at it, drop your little turds in the punchbowl, then swear you didn’t mean anything by it. Until you can come out in the open and admit what you’re pushing, nobody will ever take you seriously. You deserve each other.
133
posted on
03/12/2011 6:40:34 AM PST
by
BykrBayb
(Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
To: La Lydia; BykrBayb; metmom
who, after all, is vicious and nasty? You are.
134
posted on
03/12/2011 6:44:57 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
To: BykrBayb
“Neither of you can stand by your own long held position against the right to life.”
Honesty......
You’re going nuts, now. You cannot justify the above statement. I never said anything akin to what you are saying. You cannot debate honestly, because you are not honest. You have your own “Commandment problem”.
But you knew this about yourself already.
I simply asked “Are there limits to charity” and you could not answer, which is fine - so you make something else up.
To: RFEngineer
Yeah I know, you’re pro-life, but you have “concerns.”
136
posted on
03/12/2011 6:52:00 AM PST
by
BykrBayb
(Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
To: RFEngineer
Are there limits to charity I answered your strawman question already, and predicted that you still wouldn't get back on topic. Is this the time when I should pretend to be shocked that I guessed right?
137
posted on
03/12/2011 6:56:07 AM PST
by
BykrBayb
(Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
To: BykrBayb
“Yeah I know, youre pro-life, but you have concerns.”
I never said anything like that.
Why must you be so dishonest?
You aren’t even rational. If you are going to be so dishonest, at least try to twist something I actually said.
Are there limits to charity?
To: BykrBayb
“I answered your strawman question already, and predicted that you still wouldn’t get back on topic”
No you did not. You turned it into a personal attack by fabricating your answer to a question I did not ask.
You cannot be honest, can you?
Are there limits to charity?
To: BykrBayb
What are you talking about? Please provide a citation for my "long held position against the right to life." When and where have I EVER posted anything that could possibly be interpreted that way? Now you are making things up, and lying. Again, IT IS EASIER FOR YOU TO THROW ROCKS THAN TO ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS, even after I took the time to repost to you.
You are the one who needs to worry about being taken seriously, and being able to effectively advocate for this cause, when you go so far out of your way to alienate people like me who are already on your side. (Also, I guessed you would eventually descend to scatological insults and I was right.) Kindly refrain from repeating any more lies.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 321-333 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson