State compels parents to pull plug on terminally ill baby

[Corduroy]

The argument was never directly addressed. Stating that it is a service that you are entitled to is not an answer relative to the entitlements of everyone that relies on the HC system... And no, this isn't a change of subject, it is the crux of the issue.

I asked you about your slippery slope argument, you described it and I told you why slippery slope arguments are bad arguments. You didn't respond to that; you started talking about something else.

Who are you (or I or anyone) to unilaterally determine that the physicians are wrong and go further in accusing them of murder.

Who's asking?

Is it reasonable to expect that someone be bumped from their long-awaited and scheduled surgery to accommodate this family's needs?

Do you know this is what will happen?

As far as your answer to my hypothetical question; congratulations, you support private medicine. Looks like you are well on your way down the slippery slope that you believe to be ridiculous and hysterical.

I don't mind minor violations of intellectual dishonesty, like changing the subject and pretending you didn't, but taking what I said and fabricating my opinion of private medicine is a bit too much. No honest or critical reader could arrive at that interpretation from what I wrote.

 

[captain morgan]

I asked you about your slippery slope argument, you described it and I told you why slippery slope arguments are bad arguments. You didn't respond to that; you started talking about something else.

You passed judgement on slippery slope arguments, "ridiculous and hysterical", remember? I provided my input as to how it applied specifically to this discussion.

Who's asking?

Does that really matter? But since we're talking about it, I'll ask again. Do you have that specific knowledge or is it just unimportant when it comes to one person's entitlements?

Do you know this is what will happen?

What do you think?

Are you under the impression that your local hospital keep a bunch of spare surgical suites, surgeons, nursing staff and anesthesiologists in the garden shed for those occasions where a patient decides that they will diagnose situations and recommend surgery?

I don't mind minor violations of intellectual dishonesty, like changing the subject and pretending you didn't, but taking what I said and fabricating my opinion of private medicine is a bit too much. No honest or critical reader could arrive at that interpretation from what I wrote.

I do like the distraction of "minor violation of intellectual dishonesty" bit, however, perhaps you'll explain to this poor ole sinner how your acceptance of the family in buying/renting the medical equipment and applying it at their own time and expense is NOT a form of private medicine.

 

[talloola]

the point here for me is, the doctors do not want to do the tracheotomy, as they are concerned
about infection and further complications.

they should not be forced to do this procedure if they have such concerns.

the parents should not have the power to 'make' these doctors perform a tracheotomy, unless they
can guarantee the success of such a procedure. If the procedure did cause infection and other
complications and the child was then more uncomfortable than before, or died from infection,
'what then', do the parents then sue the hospital or?

The doctors do not want to 'take' the life of the child, they don't want to do the tracheotomy.

The doctors have been put into a unfortunate position here, and now are being blamed for wanting
to murder this child, that is preposterous, in my opinion.

I agree with Karrie to a point, but this cannot be done while tubes are keeping the baby alive.

 

[Cliffy]

God IS NOT trying to "take" this baby. God doesn't give babies diseases and he doesn't kill people. You have a false understanding of God's character.

Why would God wonderfully and fearfully make this baby Joseph (Psalm 139:14), knit him together in his mother's womb (Psalm 139:13), determine the EXACT time of his birth and where (Acts 17:26) and bring him forth on the day of his birth (Psalm 71:6) - only to GIVE him a terminal disease that would cut his life extremely short? Further, God had a LIFE LONG PLAN for Joseph to “prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" (Jeremiah 29:11)BEFORE he created the foundations of the universe.

All evidence points to God loving Joseph, that he is his treasure possession (Exodus 19:15). Does this sound like a God that gives babies diseases? The truth is that death, disease and destruction only come from one source - the enemy. "The thief has only come to steal, kill and destroy." John (10:10)

Easy for you to say. Try telling that to these kids.
YouTube - Starving Children

 

[Corduroy]

You passed judgement on slippery slope arguments, "ridiculous and hysterical", remember? I provided my input as to how it applied specifically to this discussion.

I must have missed that. This was the answer I read.

There is no free lunch. You or I can make whatever arguments we wish that suits our individual needs.

Which was partly my point. Your argument only suited your needs and contained no actual logic to it. Slippery slope arguments are mere histrionics. And that was followed by this:

All of these arguments fall flat when the facilities/services are restricted in terms of access, # of beds, etc.. We can boil this down to the needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

I'm sure you can understand how you saying that we can make whatever arguments we wish (suggesting there is no standard of logic) and then saying "all these arguments fall flat" would make me think you're not defending your argument. I don't see how the rest of the argument even addresses the previous argument. It's unrelated. Perhaps you could explain it again for me.

Does that really matter?

Don't ask questions you think don't matter and I won't answer them. My standard response to "who are you to say" type questions is "who's asking?" The question assumes I shouldn't be judging people or situations. If one requires credentials to do this, who are you to ask me for them?

But since we're talking about it, I'll ask again. Do you have that specific knowledge or is it just unimportant when it comes to one person's entitlements?

And I really have no idea what this means.

What do you think?

Are you under the impression that your local hospital keep a bunch of spare surgical suites, surgeons, nursing staff and anesthesiologists in the garden shed for those occasions where a patient decides that they will diagnose situations and recommend surgery?

This response does not follow from the part of my post you responded to. You say that people will be bumped from surgery waitlists for this child's operation. I questioned whether or not this would happen. Your response is that I must be under the impression that hospitals have idle staff and equipment waiting for any kind of surgery to come along. This is a possible impression, but it isn't a reasonable one to assume and it isn't the one I hold.

I do like the distraction of "minor violation of intellectual dishonesty" bit, however, perhaps you'll explain to this poor ole sinner how your acceptance of the family in buying/renting the medical equipment and applying it at their own time and expense is NOT a form of private medicine.

This is where you went wrong. I didn't accept that family should buy this equipment. I said that if they did, then obviously the problem would be solved. If you asked "if we had legally enforced segregation of boys and girls until they were 20 would that cut down on teen pregnancies?" The answer would obviously be yes, but it wouldn't imply support of such a policy, which you seem to have assumed in the question of the family buying their own hospital equipment.

I would like to ask anybody else reading this. Most of captain morgan's replies don't actually seem to follow from the comments of mine he is replying to. It's like he's replying to something else entirely. Is it just me? Maybe I'm not being clear enough?

 

[talloola]

I must have missed that. This was the answer I read.

There is no free lunch. You or I can make whatever arguments we wish that suits our individual needs.

Which was partly my point. Your argument only suited your needs and contained no actual logic to it. Slippery slope arguments are mere histrionics. And that was followed by this:

All of these arguments fall flat when the facilities/services are restricted in terms of access, # of beds, etc.. We can boil this down to the needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

I'm sure you can understand how you saying that we can make whatever arguments we wish (suggesting there is no standard of logic) and then saying "all these arguments fall flat" would make me think you're not defending your argument. I don't see how the rest of the argument even addresses the previous argument. It's unrelated. Perhaps you could explain it again for me.



Don't ask questions you think don't matter and I won't answer them. My standard response to "who are you to say" type questions is "who's asking?" The question assumes I shouldn't be judging people or situations. If one requires credentials to do this, who are you to ask me for them?



And I really have no idea what this means.



This response does not follow from the part of my post you responded to. You say that people will be bumped from surgery waitlists for this child's operation. I questioned whether or not this would happen. Your response is that I must be under the impression that hospitals have idle staff and equipment waiting for any kind of surgery to come along. This is a possible impression, but it isn't a reasonable one to assume and it isn't the one I hold.




This is where you went wrong. I didn't accept that family should buy this equipment. I said that if they did, then obviously the problem would be solved. If you asked "if we had legally enforced segregation of boys and girls until they were 20 would that cut down on teen pregnancies?" The answer would obviously be yes, but it wouldn't imply support of such a policy, which you seem to have assumed in the question of the family buying their own hospital equipment.

I would like to ask anybody else reading this. Most of captain morgan's replies don't actually seem to follow from the comments of mine he is replying to. It's like he's replying to something else entirely. Is it just me? Maybe I'm not being clear enough?

I'm with you on this one, very confusing and off the point answers indeed.

 

[Cliffy]

I would like to ask anybody else reading this. Most of captain morgan's replies don't actually seem to follow from the comments of mine he is replying to. It's like he's replying to something else entirely. Is it just me? Maybe I'm not being clear enough?

Go with your intuition on this. It rarely lies.

 

[Chev]

Goober mentioned: "Yes i know there are times you have to go to Emerg - Why - not enough medi centers available. So the costs for medi care rise because of this."
Yes there are a lot of people who go to the ER when a visit to a medi centre or even a bit of a wait to see their own doctor would work.
I've seen it. I took one son to emerg because he crushed his foot with a floor jack. We waited/waited and waited, all the while he was bleeding all over the place and was grey in colour and in shock... because of people with sniffles/runny noses.... Why were those people there?

talloola mentioned: “The doctors do not want to 'take' the life of the child, they don't want to do the tracheotomy.”
Maybe I misread something in the article, but if the doctors do not want to ‘take’ the life of this child, why would they want to pull the tube and make him suffocate? That’s what it would be.. isn’t it?


Sorry if I repeat something that has already been stated, but
talloola mentioned: " If the procedure did cause infection and other complications and the child was then more uncomfortable than before, or died from infection, 'what then', do the parents then sue the hospital or?"
Perhaps there's some kind of waiver the parents could be required to sign... against any legal action..?...
How long, really, would it take to do a tracheotomy on a child? And It would not take any time away from an emerg bed or emerg doctor.. (Would free up a bed in another area..." If the doctors just pull the breathing tube, there may as well be just a pillow held on his face... same difference. Suffocation. Think about not being able to breathe.
This couple had a daughter who died 9 years ago from the same disease. Degenerative neurological condition seems to consist of a lot of different diseases. Personally, I think I would have asked if there were tests that could be done to check for any of these. And I do not think, for what it’s worth, that I would try for a third. There are other children who need homes. If anyone is interested.
CaptainMorgan and Corduroy. We do not know what, if any, equipment, the family has bought. All we know from the article, is the family would like to take him home to die in the company of family....

 

[captain morgan]

Clearly I have not communicated effectively, so I will attempt to be more concise.

I'm sure you can understand how you saying that we can make whatever arguments we wish (suggesting there is no standard of logic) and then saying "all these arguments fall flat" would make me think you're not defending your argument. I don't see how the rest of the argument even addresses the previous argument. It's unrelated. Perhaps you could explain it again for me.

Point of discussion:

1. We are both making our individual arguments (that we wish for) which are in direct conflict.
2. The standard of logic, as it applies to this issue, is determined by the nature (capabilities, etc) of the healthcare system itself. The system in not very flexible.
3. What the individual consumer wants, prefers or thinks "ought to be" is incidental.

My position is: With the aforementioned in mind, it is not reasonable to expect the existing system to bend to "what ought to be" and not expect ramifications to others.

Don't ask questions you think don't matter and I won't answer them. My standard response to "who are you to say" type questions is "who's asking?" The question assumes I shouldn't be judging people or situations. If one requires credentials to do this, who are you to ask me for them?

It was a rhetorical question and it does matter very much.

I believe it is fair to say that having a thorough understanding of the system (that you seek to change) is absolutely necessary in order to implement any changes.

So, if you wish to question the efficiency/effectiveness of the system or second guess the attending physicians recommendations, then I would hope that you are knowledgeable in the area.

And I really have no idea what this means.

What "this" refers to is the level of understanding of the system or the physicians decision. Contesting the decision made by the doctor should involve (in part) having the appropriate medical knowledge. The same can be said about morphing the actual system of delivery.

You say that people will be bumped from surgery waitlists for this child's operation. I questioned whether or not this would happen. Your response is that I must be under the impression that hospitals have idle staff and equipment waiting for any kind of surgery to come along. This is a possible impression, but it isn't a reasonable one to assume and it isn't the one I hold.

Well, I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree. At this point, all we can do is debate a 'he said/she said' argument.

Perhaps the best solution is to ask this question to an individual that is directly involved in the healthcare system. Ask the question to someone that you know that is familiar with the issue.

This is where you went wrong. I didn't accept that family should buy this equipment. I said that if they did, then obviously the problem would be solved. If you asked "if we had legally enforced segregation of boys and girls until they were 20 would that cut down on teen pregnancies?" The answer would obviously be yes, but it wouldn't imply support of such a policy, which you seem to have assumed in the question of the family buying their own hospital equipment.

Fair, enough.

Let me rephrase the question... "Would you recommend that a solution to this specific issue (the terminally ill child) be solved through the purchase/rental of the necessary equipment to be administered at the child's home?"

 

[In Between Man]

A teenage girl whose life support was switched off by a New Zealand hospital against her family's wishes defied the odds to recover and returned home this week — walking and talking.

Doctors forecasted that Kimberly McNeill, 18, would never recover from her severe injuries and 15 days after being transferred to Auckland City Hospital, authorities turned off the life support machine, the New Zealand Herald reported Sunday.
Defying the odds, she pulled through and this week, two months after the wreck, which nearly claimed her life, returned to her parents' home in Napier, on New Zealand's North Island, to continue her rehabilitation.

Full article.

God bless you baby Joseph, may you get your miracle as well.