Baby Joseph’s lawyer dropped from case: prayer vigils planned

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/1/11 | Patrick B. Craine

[wagglebee]

To join a Facebook page in support of the parents of Joseph Maraachli, click here.

LONDON, Ontario, March 1, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The expert lawyer representing dying one-year-old Joseph Maraachli, whose hospital is seeking to remove his ventilator against his parents’ wishes, was removed from the case today.

Mark Handelman, who the family hired with the financial backing of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, had been negotiating with the hospital, and was successful in having the hospital delay removing the ventilator.  It is unclear at this point what effect Handelman’s removal will have on Joseph’s cause.  LifeSiteNews was unsuccessful in reaching Joseph’s parents as of press time.

Joseph Maraachli

At the same time, the Washington-based Christian Defense Coalition announced Tuesday that they and the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network are holding two prayer gatherings in London, Ontario this weekend for Joseph,

The prayer and public witness events will be on Saturday, March 5, from 12:00-2:00 p.m. and Sunday, March 6, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. in front of the London Health Sciences Centre’s Children’s Hospital.  They will be held on the corner of Wellington and Commissioners Rd.

There will also be a rally in support of Joseph’s family on Saturday from 4:00-6:00 p.m.  Location to be announced.

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, traveled to Canada last week with Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo.  The two met and prayed with the family, pledged their support, and sought to connect them to legal assistance and to help to locate a hospital for Joseph in America.

“We are gathering for prayer and public witness as we stand in solidarity with Baby Joseph and his family,” said Rev. Mahoney.  “We will not be silent when it comes to this tragic crushing of human rights. ... We must always speak out with passion and courage when we see the dignity of human life trampled.”

“We support the family as the ones who should be making the final decision on how to best deal with this beautiful child,” he added.  “The courts and the hospital have completely disregarded the wishes of the family and are crushing their parental rights.”

Joseph suffers from a severe neurological disorder, but his specific condition remains undiagnosed.  Doctors have given him no chance of recovery, so his parents, Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader, have asked them to perform a tracheostomy which would enable him to breathe on his own, so that they could take him home.  Their daughter died from similar complications eight years ago, but in that case doctors performed a tracheostomy and they were able to take her home.

The hospital said Monday that they are willing to send Joseph home, but will not perform the tracheostomy. Instead, once he’s home, they would remove his ventilator, after which he will almost certainly die within a matter of minutes.  It is unclear at this point how the family will respond to the offer.

Dr. Paul Byrne, a fifty-year veteran in the field of neonatology, told LifeSiteNews Monday that in his opinion Joseph should have had a tracheostomy “a long time ago.”  He also insisted that he has never seen a need to remove a child’s ventilator, saying that “if a baby has a disease process that’s so bad that they’re going to die, then they die on the ventilator anyway.”

The hospital had appeared set to remove Joseph’s ventilator last Monday, but was delayed when Handelman made clear to the family that they could refuse.  The hospital’s move came after a February 17th decision from Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady upholding a January verdict from the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario, which had supported the doctors’ move to take Joseph off life support against his parents’ wishes.

Justice Rady’s decision was based on doctors’ testimony that he is in a permanent vegetative state with no brain stem reflex.  But the family says that footage released Thursday by LifeSiteNews belies the doctors’ claim.  The videos, taken just over a week ago, show him flailing and reacting to tickling.  They also show that his hands have been tied down - a measure the hospital took after Joseph removed the tube from his throat on at least two separate occasions.

The hospital is now asking Ontario’s Office of the Public Guardian to intervene and allow them to take Joseph off his ventilator, after the parents have continued to refuse consent.  That office has been unsuccessful in asking other family members to consent instead, and could intervene itself any day.

In the last week, the case has drawn attention from major pro-life and anti-euthanasia groups in the U.S. who hope to find a hospital willing to take over Joseph’s care.  Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of the U.S.-based Priests for Life, has pledged to pay for Joseph to be moved to a hospital in the U.S.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has warned that the court decision facilitates a system where doctors are authorized to force life and death decisions on patients.  He has said he believes it is far worse than the “death panels” recently debated in the U.S. as part of the federal health care law.

“It’s the hospitals and the doctors once again usurping their power over the people,” he said.  “That’s what’s happening.  And they have significant power - they have the money and the courts behind them.  It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Over 13,000 people have rallied behind the parents through the Facebook page “Save baby Joseph”.

To join a Facebook page in support of the parents of Joseph Maraachli, click here.

Contact Information:

Bonnie Adamson
President and CEO, London Health Sciences Centre
800 Commissioners Road East
London, Ontario Canada N6A 5W9
Phone: 519-685-8462
E-mail: bonnie.adamson@lhsc.on.ca

Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Fax: (416) 325-3745
E-mail: Use this form.

Tim Hudak, Opposition Leader
The Ontario PC Party
19 Duncan Street
Suite 401
Toronto, ON M5H 3H1
Phone: 416-861-0020
Toll-free: 1-800-903-6453
Fax: 416-861-9593
Email: tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org

[kaila]

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.

[wagglebee]

but this report is very detailed. This baby has no brain function.

Then tell us, exactly how long can a person with "no brain function" be expected to survive with no more than a tracheotomy?

[BykrBayb]

Dead bodies do not move of their own accord. They don’t function. Zombies are fictional creatures.

[RnMomof7]

I believe hospitals can not refuse to treat the uninsured

[kaila]

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.

[kaila]

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.

[wagglebee]

This is Canada, citizens pay a bunch of money for substandard health care.

[kaila]

What is that supposed to mean?

[wagglebee]

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.

The family IS NOT requesting a ventilator, just the tracheotomy.

[kaila]

Then why do the trach when the baby will die with only the trach? That is not logical. The parents are in denial.
Would you want to cut a hole into a baby's throat for no apparent reason?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

This baby has no brain function.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

[wagglebee]

Excellent post!

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Then why do the trach when the baby will die with only the trach?

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.

[BykrBayb]

Yes, that is an excellent post. Thanks Doc!

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Notice how consistent this case is with Schiavo's?

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?)

[BykrBayb]

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.

[BykrBayb]

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The sister probably did not lose her breathing reflex. Probably was not on a ventilator. This baby is further along the process.

From your link:

JM's MRI is, in fact, remarkably similar to his deceased sister ZM.

...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.

Care to retract that obviously erroneous assertion? Or haven't you read the report you linked yet?

[kaila]

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.

[wagglebee]

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.

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.