Posted on 03/01/2011 3:57:34 PM PST by wagglebee
It would be a tough search.
How many Catholic Children’s hospitals are in the U.S.?
The only one I know of is St. Jude.
I doubt very much this tortured baby qualifies.
Then tell us, exactly how long can a person with "no brain function" be expected to survive with no more than a tracheotomy?
Dead bodies do not move of their own accord. They don’t function. Zombies are fictional creatures.
I believe hospitals can not refuse to treat the uninsured
He will not survive without being placed on a ventilator.
The baby cannot breathe on his own. The ventilator would be hooked up to the trach.
However, this baby is in such poor condition, he will likely get pneumonia or other infections from the surgery.
Please read the report. It spells it all out.
American hospitals can refuse this patient.
The only time a hospital cannot refuse this patient is if it was an emrgency that showed up at their ER.
Protocol is when a hospital transfers a patient, the receiving hospital has to consent and an attending physician needs to accept this patient.
Also, this patient is not a US citizen, so therefore does not qualify for Medicaid. The hospital would have to fund for all the cost of treatment and home care.
What is that supposed to mean?
The family IS NOT requesting a ventilator, just the tracheotomy.
I am a doctor, and I know how to read reports by medical boards, and I just read this entire report. No where in the report does it state there is no brain function. On the contrary, it skirts around that issue consistently and deliberately, asserting instead that there is diminished brain function and brain mass and that there is a persistent vegetative state, an ill defined concept that covers a wide range of conditions:
He indicated that the MRIs and EEGs confirmed that there was a significant loss of neuronal content in JM's brain...Dr. L concluded his report by saying that there was “severe diffuse neurological damage.”
...Dr. P said that JM “remains severely impaired-as in a vegetative state.”
Notice how the board refused the parents the opportunity to PROVE their child can interact with them?
Ought the Board view the patient, JM, interact with his parents?In Mr. S's written submissions on behalf of the parents, he referred to the case of EJG, 2007 CanLII 44704 (ON C.C.B.), 2007 CanLII 44704 (ON C.C.B.). He submitted that the Board ought to see the child, JM, interact with his parents “following the procedure set out in page 3 of the EJG decision.” While the Board viewed the patient in EJG, there was no precedent set nor was there any requirement that the Board view JM during the hearing of the evidence in this matter.
In replies to the submissions of the parties, both Ms ZB, on behalf of Dr. F and Ms E, on behalf of the patient JM, rejected Mr. S's submission.
Ms ZB, in her reply, said such a viewing ought not to be done after the evidentiary portion of the hearing was concluded. She submitted that neither JM's counsel, nor counsel for JM's parents, suggested this evidence be included at the time that evidence was being heard. She said that Dr. F relied on Rule 29.1 of the Consent and Capacity Board Rules of Practice that no new evidence may be presented during final argument.
Ms E made a similar argument in her reply.
Section 29.1, as referred to above states: “After all of the parties have had an opportunity to present evidence, the Board shall give all parties an opportunity to make a final argument in support of the decision or order they want the Board to make. No new evidence may be presented during final argument.” We agreed with Ms ZB and Ms E that viewing the child with the parents ought not to be done. Even if we decided incorrectly that new evidence should not be introduced, it was our view that seeing JM was not relevant and/or necessary to our decision.
Here's the bottom line, from your link:
JM's MRI is, in fact, remarkably similar to his deceased sister ZM.And that is what should be done now also. Nothing has changed, be it the neurological condition or the best treatment. The ethics of the situation have not changed from his sister's case till now....Dr. F discussed the condition of ZM, the sister of JM, who died in infancy after a prolonged stay at LHSC. He said that her MRI and MRS were remarkably similar to those completed on JM. He said that Dr. S was involved in ZM's case and that the doctors reluctantly agreed to give her a tracheostomy and send her home.
The only thing that has changed is that a totalitarian health care system thinks that citizens have no rights and are the property of the state, that parents have no rights to direct health care decisions for their children, and that big brother gets to decide, not God, on when the subjects it owns get to live or die.
And you support big brother in this regard.
The child cannot swallow his own secretions, and cannot breathe on his own because of that.
If they do a trach, he will be able to breathe on his own, just like his sister did for 6 months, without a vent. The parents will probably need suction to keep the trach clear, but they will not need a vent.
Please, read the medical report you posted, read the facts about his sister's case, and stop making assertions that are not supported by the evidence at hand.
Yes, that is an excellent post. Thanks Doc!
Terri's husband refused to permit a test to ascertain whether Terri could actually swallow.
The medical board refuses to let the parents prove the child can interact, because it would destroy their claims of diminished brain function.
(Notice they're not craven enough to claim no brain function, unlike the euthanasia apologist on this thread, because it is so easily disproven?)
It’s not complicated. When you see someone moving around on their own, they aren’t dead. A body that has no brain function at all is dead. If a person is moving on their own, that means they are alive. If they are alive, there is some brain function. The mythical world in which zombies move around at will, even though they’re dead, is pure fiction. It’s quite possible for a person’s brain function to be below the threshold deemed by the death mongers to qualify them for the rights of personhood, but someone like you should be careful about that.
They can’t afford for the truth to get out. Cognitively disabled patients are routinely killed. The added expense of allowing them to live until natural death is almost incalculable.
From your link:
JM's MRI is, in fact, remarkably similar to his deceased sister ZM.Care to retract that obviously erroneous assertion? Or haven't you read the report you linked yet?...Dr. F discussed the condition of ZM, the sister of JM, who died in infancy after a prolonged stay at LHSC. He said that her MRI and MRS were remarkably similar to those completed on JM. He said that Dr. S was involved in ZM's case and that the doctors reluctantly agreed to give her a tracheostomy and send her home.
I give up.
All of you are delusional.
You have no idea of what you are talking about- I do.
I have been there.
Maybe this is why the world is so screwed up.
Goodnight. Good luck in all your life.
You all need it.
All of you are delusional.
You have no idea of what you are talking about- I do.
I have been there.
Maybe this is why the world is so screwed up.
Goodnight. Good luck in all your life.
You all need it.
Pathetic.
You say you give up? Good. EVERYONE who believes as you do should give up and allow those who actually care about human life to care for the sick and disabled.
As for your assertion that we have no idea what we are talking about, Brian showed you from THE ACTUAL REPORT that it is YOU who are making assertions that are patently FALSE.
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.