tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post2252275124257126018..comments2024-03-27T11:49:41.376-04:00Comments on Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Baby Joseph is in St. Louis - What now?Alex Schadenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07649977828342637842noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-56104644536167148042011-03-21T14:15:37.024-04:002011-03-21T14:15:37.024-04:00Can you please clarify why you would not describe ...Can you please clarify why you would not describe LHSC efforts to remove the ventilator from baby Joseph as euthanasia?<br />I can understand that not all cases of removing the ventilator can be classified as euthanasia, however, in Joseph's case, removing the ventilator would have "intentionally hastened his death". Due to the fact that none of Joseph's other organs were known to be shutting down due to his condition, being denied his right to breathe would constitute euthanasia, would it not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-18791704038217978452011-03-17T10:35:00.638-04:002011-03-17T10:35:00.638-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alex Schadenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07649977828342637842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-73752936363766577292011-03-17T08:23:12.480-04:002011-03-17T08:23:12.480-04:00I know there are many cases like this that happen ...I know there are many cases like this that happen frequently in hospitals all over Canada and the US. Very rarely do they go to the Consent and Capacity board to go against the wishes of the family. For this hospital to subject themselves to the firestorm of hate they are experiencing and to endure the costs of fighting for palliation for this baby tells me they truely believe it is the right thing to do. Prolonging this child's suffering just so the parents control exactly where his death occurs seems far more cruel. It is very possible that parents are unable to see this difficult situation from the side of the child simply because they naturally don't want him to die.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-74448612723819276272011-03-15T07:19:28.530-04:002011-03-15T07:19:28.530-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-79151129548040353312011-03-14T19:51:18.506-04:002011-03-14T19:51:18.506-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-65880948787929332502011-03-14T19:37:59.308-04:002011-03-14T19:37:59.308-04:00This and other cases are about who has the right t...This and other cases are about who has the right to decide what is in the patient's best interests. It becomes unbalanced when those who are ultimately charged with making the final determination have even the support of the legal counsel charged to advocate on behalf of the patient, as was the case with baby Joseph's Legal Aid attorney.<br /><br />Judicial decisions are basically exercises in logic, an attempt to depersonalize a situation so as to achieve objectivity, lack of bias. But that's not entirely possible, as is evident in this argument from the Legal Aid attorney appointed to argue for Joseph's best interests. I shall first replace words in a key sentence from the lawyer's argument with a logic formula:<br /><br />>>As B has no values and beliefs P cannot base a decision, for B, based on P's.<<<br /><br />Assuming the premises are taken as givens (which is debatable, but we'll leave it for now), this argument formula would apply to anyone ("P") who applies their own values and beliefs to making a decision on behalf of "B" (the patient), be they parent, medical staff, judicial arbiters, ethicists, etc.<br /><br />However, in this case, the lawyer excluded all the latter from his reasoning. In his argument, *only* the parents had *no* right to apply their values and beliefs in making their decision. The implication is that medical experts, judicial reviewers, and ethicists of the provincial Consent and Capacity Board have the right to apply their own values and beliefs to making this decision. Please note the final sentence of the lawyer's argument below:<br /><br />“The parents have their own views, opinions, values and beliefs. Prolonging Joseph’s life serves them and their needs, but is it best for Joseph? He doesn’t have values and beliefs. He cannot think. He is a baby and for all of these reasons he needs and deserves to have his parents make decisions that put his best interests ahead of their own. As he has no values and beliefs they cannot base a decision, for him, based on theirs. But, in my opinion, that is what they are doing. I do not believe they are assessing what is in his best interest. If they were, I believe the result would be different and their decision would align with the hospital.”<br /><br />In other words, this is about who has the right to make these determinations. In Canada, doctors are limited as to the number of privately insured patients they make take in their caseloads. This was intended to discourage bias against the poor and those of fewer means in matters of medical treatment and care. The intent is noble, but perhaps it has led to an extreme situation wherein health care resources are strapped financially, so that decisions must be made to withhold the most expensive treatment from those deemed to be hopelessly terminal. It is not outright euthanasia, and it does undoubtedly cause pain to all involved, including medical staff and judicial review boards. Regardless, we cannot couch our decisions in fatalistic logic biased towards those who allocate health care resources.<br /><br />I will also note that we face similar decisions in the U.S., as those who lack access to health care are routinely refused treatments for lack of ability to pay. For instance, in some states, a hospital has the right to withdraw feeding tubes when a patient's health insurance funding expires and no other payment arrangements are made. At best, the patient's family has the right to seek a facility that will provide charitable care, but if no such facility is found, the patient faces an immanent death sentence by starvation.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15777670252385677878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9216787076261944467.post-81188377275819264742011-03-14T15:35:17.617-04:002011-03-14T15:35:17.617-04:00Thank you for keeping us informed about this impor...Thank you for keeping us informed about this important case. We will continue praying for Baby Joseph and his family and we will also continue getting informed about other life issues. Thank you for all the work you do and God bless you always1 Keep up the good work!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com