February 28, 2011
-
Baby Joseph and Universal Health Care
With the Universal Health Care in Canada, the government gets to make life and death decisions about who lives and who dies.
This is Baby Joseph. Unfortunately for him, he is Canadian.
The Canadian government has decided that he must have his breathing tube removed. The parents want to keep him alive. So the Canadian government will not allow the parents to take him home because they will not agree to let him die. “Health Care Allocation” officials decided that he was going to die anyway. Here are the links: Link1
Link2Who should make the decision of whether baby Joseph has his breathing tube removed, the government or his parents?
Comments (71)
WHO ON EARTH ARE YOU?
goddamn middle-age mothers
WHOA. I can’t process a single word you just said.
*looks at your profile picture*
Oh goodness. This is an aspect of free health care that I’ve never thought of. That’s truly awful.
rob_of_the_sky
This family found US doctors willing to perform a tracheotomy. Last I heard they were going to take that route. Speaking as a person living with a tracheotomy there are worse fates and this baby deserves every chance at life. It will be rough at first but he should be allowed a chance to live. If he passes on it should be after
EVERYTHING
else has been tried.
I think this is a rare example of the bad side of their healthcare I do not think that it is an adequate reflection of how things typically go there.Many ppl with tracheotomies go on to lead normal HEALTHY lives. I am currently in college to become a registered nurse which is proof that even with a tracheotomy you can do anything, well except maybe go swimming.. oh wait i do that too!
Health insurance companies.
the people who pay for his healthcare.
Whoever foots the bill.
The Dr.’s won’t put in a trach tube so the fam can take the kid home; “not in his best interest.” When I worked as a hospital orderly, I saw trach tubes in patients of all ages; including infants; and their families were inserviced how to maintain them. I remember medical professionals kicking and screaming in the 1980′s over the insurance co.’s determining treatment via what procedures would be covered. And the sort of dismissive POV was, dr’s are overpaid and ripe for malpractice suits.
Health care means, in its fundamental sense, the caregiver treats and the pt–or pt’s family can choose to recieve or decline treatment.
…but the scary scenarios won’t happen here, we’re assured.
His parents.
For all you who say that those who pay for his health care should decide — that is EXACTLY why I don’t want universal health care! I want to make my own decisions or have my family make my decisions about my health. Not some random stranger across the country who doesn’t know me and couldn’t care less about what happens to me.
That’s sad. Baby stew time.
This pretty much is a slam dunk why Obamacare and socialism basically suckass and tea partiers are correct. Had this kid been an American and his parents had no insurance due to irresponsibility or being poor the kid woulda been dead already and we wouldnt have to deal with such a messy situation. Also, if they had insurance…it would be them and the insurance company and well…thats just business….again, not our problem to worry about.
Universal Healthcare…”Big brother is watching you Joseph.”
I feel like there is more to this story… like he only has a .03% chance of living with it anyway or something. I mean com’n Canada’s government would not come under fire for killing a baby like this.
Okay I just read the articles. The baby is terminally ill. He will die anyway. They are keeping him alive in a vegetable state. If the parents were paying out of pocket or ran out of private insurance money they would have pulled it a long time ago. Don’t milk your government because you can. They apparently had a daughter with the same disease whom they took home and kept alive for six months in a vegetative state. Why? How is that helping their child? He has no brain matter. It’s selfish. If they want to put their kid through hell, then use their own money.
@FallingSafely - now that’s really “more to the story” than meets the eye.
Whoa, sucks to be Canadian. Then again, health care is free there.
OF COURSE the Tea Party and Republicans will take this and use it to suit their own agenda. Funny how a child’s death caused by a government will make the GOP cut off funding from Medicaid and Medicare, which could in turn cause other children to die for lack of funding for their own health care. I agree that the government shouldn’t run health care to extent that Canada does, because of cases like Baby Joseph, but its still not reason to destroying health care funding for the current programs we have, because people DEPEND on those programs.
Also, is the ACLU screaming about this? I know its in Canada, but they should still be screaming at the deprivation of patient rights.
@RedHedRenegade - @firetyger - This case has nothing to do with Universal Health Care. The Provincial Act that gives Ontario doctors jursidiction in the medical decisions of incapacitated patients is seperate from– politically, legally, and practically– from the Canada-wide policy of public health insurance.
This case has nothing to do with Universal Health Care. Dan is way fucking off in his OP framing.
What gave the province of Ontario decision-making power is the Ontario Substitution Decisions Act (OSDA). The act was passed democratically through the legislative assembly of Ontario. Canadian Public Health Care, by contrast, is a nation-wide service and passed through Canadian Parliment. The two are fucking seperate. OSDA was passed in 1992 and ammended in 2000. Canadian Public Health Care was passed in 1984.
Yes: This is a facinating moral debate over euthenasia and over who– the parents, the doctors, the state– is in the best position to make medical decisions for an incapacitated patient. This debate, though, is seperate and distinct from that of Universal health Care.
it happens here in the good ol’ u s of a, too. people die because they do not have the stamina to fight for what they need to live and they just get worn down jumping through all of the hoops our health insurance companies make us do. right now, i am trying to get our health insurance company to cover the costs of some meds that my doc has determined i need, but apparently, our insurance company knows better than my doc, even though they have never examined me or know anything about my family history. i have had to fight like a tiger to get our health insurance to cover the only meds that seemed to work for our daughter since they were not on their list of approved drugs for asthma. seems they were willing to pay for trips to the e.r. for breathing treatments when the stuff they would pay for did not work, but because they had not made a deal with the company that made the stuff that did work, we had to jump through all kinds of hoops, documenting everything and putting her through a while lot of trauma before we could convince them to let us use the ones that worked. never could get any of them to pay for the delivery system required to administer any kind of these drugs to a child under 12, so for more than a decade, we had to cover that expense in addition to our health insurance premiums, too…
I don’t get your posts lately. There seems to be a heavy emphasis on fabricating unnecessary shock-value.
I can get that from watching my evening news.
@tenshii_rage - ”Also, is the ACLU screaming about this? I know its in Canada, but they should still be screaming at the deprivation of patient rights.”
ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. The basis of protection for those liberties is the United States Constitution. The forum of challenge for thsoe rights is the American Judicial System.
Canada has its own Constitution, its own legal tradition, and its own court system.
@firetyger - I totally agree!
@Celestial_Teapot - I saw the words “Universal Healthcare” and “Health Care Allocation.” Big Brother is certainly watching Joseph.
@RedHedRenegade - Don’t be an uncritical cow. Dan was incorrect in his recap of the articles. The articles references a ” Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario.” The Board was created by an Ontario Act (link) that has nothing to do with Canada’s National Health Care.
His parents should make that desicion. Also, what @one_trached_momma said.
The gov’t, since they’re paying for it. Otherwise hey, pull a John Q
@Celestial_Teapot - dont be a socialist in denial. havent you read nineteen eighty four…or better yet go rent capitalismt: a love story from a movie vending machine.
Canadians suck.
I am Canadian and I do not know how to respond to this.
Wow, I had never thought about that. I was always jealous of Canada. But, I wouldn’t want healthcare like that, if I can’t make decisions for my children.
sometimes we don’t know all the facts
. With the new advances in medical care you could keep someone alive forever
. I’m a retired nurse and even if this child had rich parents with really great insurance the doctors might recommend that life support is turned off.
Canada is not the bad guy you might believe.
And this is why I am opposed to Universal Healthcare, and Obama’s socialist tactics he is trying to impose on us.
If he can’t do something as basic as breathe on his own then he might as well not be alive anyway. His parents need to stop being babies and let him go already.
the obvious answer to this question is his parents….
whether its public or private healthcare, no system is ever going to be without its flaws……… but when it’s cheaper for my mom to buy a plane ticket and fly to Korea for dental surgery (our insurance wouldn’t cover it), rather than get it done in America, then i think it’s reasonable to say that the healthcare system in America could use at least some kind of improvement.
As has already been pointed out, this case has nothing at all to do with universal health care. But you’re right, it’s so awful when government makes life and death decisions. I much prefer those decisions to be made by corporations on the basis of maximizing profits for the super-rich.
It should always be the loved ones decision. Not the government.
I’m glad somebody, @Celestial_Teapot, did their research. As a Canadian, I can assure ALL you Americans, who mostly just astound me with your ignorance (this is not a blanket statement as I see there are some people who don’t have their heads up their asses), that Universal Health Care is the way to go.
You can bet your life that Baby Joseph is not related to anyone who holds a political office in Canada! I just responded to carpe diem’s write on my sight about seizing the moment……No one has the right to decide an unfavorable outcome for Baby Joseph’s moments, We are treading unchartered waters here without a copoass, except that which hopefully most of us are both with: a conscience. It’s a frightening proposition if it’s your life that is being decided on whether to be kept afloat or allowed to go under. Lisa O’
@NightlyDreams - It should always be the loved ones decision. Not the government.
Even if the parents’ decision is medically ignorant and objectively and unnecessarily leads to prolonged pain and suffering? The conflict isn’t between Joseph’s parents and the Onatrio government– it’s between those parents and Joseph’s physicians. I do sympathize with this view. Fundamentally, we understands parents to have a clear right over the raising of their children.
In passing the Ontario Substitute Decisions Act, through their representatives, the people of Ontario decided that there is a basic and universal understnading of medical well-being. That when a person is incapacitated, sometimes, the best decision-makers are physicians and experts and not a parent or spouse.
The parent isnt’ always right, and to me, this is a a bit akin to a kid being pulled out of a home and into child services for parent neglect or abuse. The doctors seem unanimous in their judgement over what is best, medically, for Baby Joseph.
Gwonda and Lee had twins. One of the twins was born with a hole in his heart and two veins reversed. The doctors didn’t even circumscise the little boy but instead told the parents to take him home and enjoy him while they could. Three years later this little boy had a cold and Gwonda took him in to the doctor. The doctor asked her “Where did you get this one (the baby). Gwonda said that is Bobby. The doctor said flatly, “No, Bobby is dead”. The mom said no he is not..he is right there. Three years old and wearing 6 month clothes Bobby sat waiting on his exam. When the mother finally convinced him that this was the twin that should have died they called in a specialist. Bobby is now 56 years old and a fine father to my two sons and a wonderful husband to me. Give the child every chance to live, you just never know what might be possible a few short years down the road.
Stupid Americans…..
I want the Americans who dont believe in Universal healthcare to go live in Canada for a year, come back and see which one is better then….. And its not the governments choice, they can do whatever they want (the parents).. But whatever, republicans, ch
@mommachatter - Thank you for that post. I’m glad not everyone takes every single doctor’s word as gold. They are human too and make mistakes.
@mommachatter - Right. With one or two anecdotes, any parent can overcome medical reality.
At least they have the ability to go to the fucking doctor. I’d rather have that choice than watch my baby die because I couldn’t afford to keep him alive.
If it was my child, I would at least want to be able to make the decision myself, whatever my child’s odds for survival are.
@bbanmen420 - the parents only have a choice because they can bring the child to America, if America had a similar system as Canada, the parents would have no where else to go
@mommachatter - beautiful story!!
@Celestial_Teapot - Two completely different situations.
This is where Obamacare will lead.
This is a case of what is in the child’s best interests (as far as the doctors are concerned, the child will not survive, and a trach will probably kill him before he can arrive at home) and what the mother and father think is best for him. Of course, since it is their child, they want to do everything possible to keep the child alive because of their love for him, but what they suggest may only prolong his suffering. I say this only because recently my grandfather passed away after having cancer. He suffered for a long time and slipped away peacefully IN THE HOSPITAL with my mother, father, grandmother, and uncle with him. I would say that the doctors’ choice is the best, NOT the government’s, although they should let the family have alone time with him.
@ArianaPyle - Great comment. I agree.
@janusfiles - How? I think if you try moving beyond snappy one-liners, you’d see that there is little policy-link between American Health Care Reform and the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario (which has nothing to do with Canadian Universal Health Care).
Parents.
This doesn’t have anything to do with UHC. If he lived in America, the health insurance companies would decide whether he lived or died.
Please stop twisting facts to fit your right-wing agenda.
@Babyboomerjill - thank you… exactly listen to this person!
@SKANLYN - and thank you! however sadistic in nature… main point taken
@wearywalden - America denied the baby.
his parents, of course.
This has nothing to do with Universal Health Care. Read the articles. This kid will die either way.
I hate when post are written so one-sided. It seems like only a few read the article and understand the universal health care in canada.
Thank you, first off, celestial_teapot you beat me to that one. And now, the substance, if you will, that’s the problem with thinking, oh, Canada’s health care works… the government pays for it. The government giveth and the government taketh away. The life of a child. Who, after all, wouldn’t live anyway. Or is it cheaper if the child dies? Can’t remember which one was applicable. Not really important, the decision has been made. Just remember, the parents have their own agenda. They, undoubtedly want little Joseph to live, and they have the sympathy card and public support. Baby Joseph will live.
It’s still a government… killing a baby with the spotlight on would just look bad.
Would like to see those negative adverts though… “Parliament (or whatever Canada has) member Dudley Doright, upstanding citizen? Think again. Fact: He votes to kill babies. Reminder: A vote for Dudley Doright is a vote for dead babies… the citizens against Parliament member Doright approve this message.”
@Celestial_Teapot - You are awesome.
Fuck Dan, you have such an agenda with your posts lately, I don’t even like coming by here anymore.
This is such a bizarre case, and I say that from working in the Canadian Health Care System. It’s irresponsible for you to insinuate this is some everyday thing in Canada when you haven’t the faintest clue of the reality here. There are LOTS of people on life support who should have been taken off years ago. Once in a while you might get a story like this, because you had a doctor who pushed against the family’s wishes and it made it to the media. This is not typical by a long shot. It doesn’t happen often. In this case, anyone with half a brain would advocate on behalf of the family to ensure the baby dies at home as per the family’s wishes, and work with the family to relieve their fears about natural death, pain, and guilt about withdrawl of life support.
It really pisses me off how you create your discussions from such an obviously slanted perspectively lately on your blog. Is it for more traffic? Or because you’re trying to vilify something you obviously don’t understand so people will support your conservative standpoint on privatized health care? Where are all your posts on the number of people in the US denied health care? Have you talked about that lately?
Canada should allow out-of-pocket payment for any ‘unecessary’ medical procedures, as they do for example for plastic surgery (if this is really unecessary or not is a different question.)
@Sand_notes - It IS awful, but it’s not necessarily an aspect of public health care systems.
@janusfiles - and how do you now that? as far as I know Obama does *not* want to eliminate the possibility of private health care, or nationalize the whole system, least of all ‘forbid’ any procedures. It merely offers the possibilty to acces health care to those with a lower income, so they don’t DIE because of it (or at least not all of them). A more social sytem is not necessarily socialist.
Yeah. Do we really want the government running our health care? I mean, they can’t even get my driver’s license correct the first time around.
Wow – i hate when people show one side of the story. He is braindead. He will die either way.
The parents.
Cool website buddy I am gona suggest this to all my list of contacts.
Website
Cool website buddy I am gona suggest this to all my list of contacts.
Visit Website