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.
“I looked back through your posting history, and you are obsessed with other people spending government money. Your obsession with preventing other people from spending tax dollars has blinded you to the medical ethics issues of this case.”
If you are a true Freeper, it is not the governments money, it is our money paid through our blood and sweat via taxation.
I do not want to see it wasted in futility.
If the Catholics want to pay for it, go for it.The American healthcare system should not pay for this.
Plan on a couple of hundred thousand. Write the checks if you mean it.
However, there are lots of Mexican children who need American healthcare, but somehow you are all resistent to paying for healthcare for illegals.
Somehow, this does not compute.