bad situation. but i feel the parents are in the wrong

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sixone
That should be their choice, not yours.

They have the choice. They can have him at any other location in the world. All this says is that they can't force this hospital and they can't force these doctors to do this to their son.

What about the son's choice? What about the hospital's choice? What about the doctor's choice? What about the payer's choice? You are ignoring all of those choices. And at the same time you are hurting the one family that you pretend to care about.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: waggy
IF there was a chance the child could come back i woiuld be all for it. FACT is that IS NOT going to happen. EVER. No matter how long he stays on the machines he is never going to get better.

yes they derserve compassion and understanding. They do not derserve to keep the child on machines until they feel it is time for him to go. medicaid has a limited amount of funds. i would rather see that money go to help someone alive who needs it.

also the hospital has limited resources. why waste them on a case where there is NO chance of improvement?

The money spent to keep him alive is not going to cause anyone else to be denied the treatment they need. And if it helps the parents, then it's money well spent, IMHO.

but it is not about helping the parents. it is about trying to save the little boy. they can't. it is not the hospitals or medacaids responbility to make the parents feel good.

keeping this child on the machines will do nothing to help them. all it will do is prolonge the pain and suffering of everyone envolved.

the only way they are going to get over this is let the child go and continue on with life. how long do you want to help the parents? another week? a month? a year? its already been nearly 4 months. its time to let go

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: sixone
That should be their choice, not yours.

They have the choice. They can have him at any other location in the world. All this says is that they can't force this hospital and they can't force these doctors to do this to their son.

What about the son's choice? What about the hospital's choice? What about the doctor's choice? What about the payer's choice? You are ignoring all of those choices. And at the same time you are hurting the one family that you pretend to care about.

Yes, I am ignoring those choices. Because they're made by people who are putting money first. I can't even remotely respect that.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sixone
Yes, I am ignoring those choices. Because they're made by people who are putting money first. I can't even remotely respect that.

Would the son have chose this path if he was able? Is that based upon money?

The doctors make money from this, cutting off the son will make the doctors LOSE money.

The hospital makes money from this, cutting off the son will make the hospital LOSE money.

I paid for this care, yes money is a motivator. But so what? Money can and should be a reason to do things. There is NOT an infinite amount of money. Too many frivolous Medicare expenses and politicians will cut Medicare funding. Less funding = people with treatable problems won't get treatment. By helping this useless case you are harming future patients who had chances of quality life later. What about their families? I hope it isn't anyone in your family who loses funding over this.

 

[origami]

I think the baby should just be let go a long time ago. I am sure if he feels anything that would be pain and suffering. No matter how happy the mother is by having the baby by her side, he is not going to get any better. If by chance he does recover for a little, he is not going to get healthy. He is going to need life support forever..

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: sixone
Yes, I am ignoring those choices. Because they're made by people who are putting money first. I can't even remotely respect that.

Would the son have chose this path if he was able? Is that based upon money?

The doctors make money from this, cutting off the son will make the doctors LOSE money.

The hospital makes money from this, cutting off the son will make the hospital LOSE money.

I paid for this care, yes money is a motivator. But so what? Money can and should be a reason to do things. There is NOT an infinite amount of money. Too many frivolous Medicare expenses and politicians will cut Medicare funding. Less funding = people with treatable problems won't get treatment. By helping this useless case you are harming future patients who had chances of quality life later. What about their families? I hope it isn't anyone in your family who loses funding over this.

The son isn't able, and playing "what if" is just silly. Show me one Medicaid patient who didn't get the care they needed because the state couldn't pay for it. Just one.

Our government wastes millions of dollars every year, and you're worried about one baby on life support. That bridge to nowhere, Alaska, costs more than this.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: sixone
Yes, I am ignoring those choices. Because they're made by people who are putting money first. I can't even remotely respect that.

Would the son have chose this path if he was able? Is that based upon money?

The doctors make money from this, cutting off the son will make the doctors LOSE money.

The hospital makes money from this, cutting off the son will make the hospital LOSE money.

I paid for this care, yes money is a motivator. But so what? Money can and should be a reason to do things. There is NOT an infinite amount of money. Too many frivolous Medicare expenses and politicians will cut Medicare funding. Less funding = people with treatable problems won't get treatment. By helping this useless case you are harming future patients who had chances of quality life later. What about their families? I hope it isn't anyone in your family who loses funding over this.

The son isn't able, and playing "what if" is just silly. Show me one Medicaid patient who didn't get the care they needed because the state couldn't pay for it. Just one.

Our government wastes millions of dollars every year, and you're worried about one baby on life support. That bridge to nowhere, Alaska, costs more than this.

you do know it gets cut all the time?

do you really think that everyone that needs it really gets it?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: waggy
yes they need to deel with the loss. but it is going ot take years for that to happen. should the child be on the machine the whole time? If you believe in the afterlife why keep the child in limbo? let him continue on with his journey.

on a more releastic side. it is the taxpayers that are footing this bill. should htey continue to pay for this so the parents feel better? the hospital has limited resources. they are being wasted on a case that has no hope of ever getting better.

sometimes a greiving reletive is not the one that s hould be makeing the choice. just look at the shivo case.

I don't give a flying flip about the money.

Until you actually produce a check covering this child's care, that's nothing but empty, empty rhetoric. It is nothing but phony moral arrogance to cast burdens on others you have not demonstrated you're willing to bear yourself. Pay this child's bill, and then you can tell the hospital what to do.

 

[ATLien247]

Not that it makes a difference, but has this child been on life support since birth, or is he on life support due to recent illness or injury?

 

[waggy]

link

Travis County judge extends the life of an 18-month-old boy for another week, as he battles Leigh's Disease, a progressive brain disease that will ultimately kill him.

Caterina Gonzales, the boy's mother, sat alone for 20 minutes, until lawyers for both sides finally entered the courtroom. Probate Judge Guy Herman was working out details of the extension of the Temporary Restraining Order preventing doctors at Children's Hospital of Austin from removing life support to 18-month-old Emilio Gonzales.

Late yesterday, Judge Herman appoint an attorney to be "guardian ad litem" for Emilio during the legal proceedings, citing an "allegation of adverse interest" between the Seton Family of Hospitals and the Gonzales family.

Herman will hold an April 19th hearing on a temporary injunction. That would effectively prevent doctors from taking any action.

Attorney Jerri Ward represents Emilio's mother. She says they have several "promising leads" for other hospitals to take Emilio's case. But Michael Regier with Seton claims they've had 31 hospitals tell them they would not accept the infant as a patient.

Gonzales says the boy responds to her voice and that the medical picture is not as dire as physicians claim. Regier says the boy cannot breathe on his own, and that the tubes that help him breathe cause the infant so much pain that he is administered morphine.



so he gets another week to find a hospital that will take him.


sheesh. i guess the boy does feel pain. he has to be given morphine =( poor kid

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Darwin333
It doesn?t matter what you or I think. I do not want a hospitals policy or some government legislation making medical decisions for me. I have a living will that expresses my wishes but if I didn?t then I would want my family to make that decision. I have infinitely more faith that my family?s wishes will be in my best interest than the wishes of a Judge or a hospital.

the child is on MEDICAID, the parents CANNOT make payments, as much as you want to say it's not about money it's ALWAYS about money. and why shouldn't it be.

sorry, but if you can't pay for a procedure than it is not YOUR DECISION TO MAKE.

the hospital and the state SHOULD make the decision when it's a situation where the patient cannot afford to pay.

sure, if you are bill gates and is willing to pay for indefinite support of life, than you can argue that it is his call.

otherwise, it is NOT YOUR RIGHT. how can you claim it is your RIGHT if you can't pay for it?

This pretty much sums up the reality. If you are going to suck money from others to pay for your needs then the decision to terminate the services ultimately lies with the hospital/government. Even private health insurance will eventually pull the plug on funding and then it becomes a personal financial decision and responsibility.+

 

[Kelvrick]

Little late to the scene, but just saying I'm with the hospital on this one. I called up my a current resident that i went to undergrad with and started talking to him about this and he said if he got the orders, he'd do it, but he personally feels that he'd be sick to his stomach if he was forced to do this.

No real impact on this case, but I agree with him. Legal matters probably prevent the doctors/nurses/staff from speaking their personal feelings about this, but I would think it would come up in court.

And the whole medicaid argument is stupid. Yes, there isn't a person WITH medicaid that is denied treatment, but frivolous costs like this (in my opinion) and they start cutting the amount of people who get the benefit.

My recent 3 day stay in the hospital has cost my insurance company about 15 grand so far. Privatized insurance is different, but should my accident had cost them say 150 grand and they raise the premium beyond what a person would pay, or deny coverage to a person because of high risk, it could very well destroy that person's life if they have an accident.

 

[robphelan]

it's interesting to note that before becoming the compassionate emporer, then governor GWB signed the legislation giving hospitals the control on terminating life support.

seems like he's on the other side of the fence when the Schiavo case came up.

 

[Darwin333]

Regier says the boy cannot breathe on his own, and that the tubes that help him breathe cause the infant so much pain that he is administered morphine.

I am not doctor, but if he can feel pain then wouldn?t that imply that he has some sort of cognitive ability?

1) The person who is ill gets to make the decision.
2) If the person is unable to make the decision the family gets to make the decision.
3) If the family's decision cannot medically help the patient and may harm the patient, then you cannot force a hospital to follow that decision.

Your implying that by keeping the child alive, regardless of the means, is harming him? Supposedly, he is already brain dead , so he is not aware of the treatment nor any pain associated with it. By saying that you can ?harm? him you are implying that he is aware of the treatment and his surroundings. If that is the case then it becomes an issue of ending the life of a conscious and aware human being and I did not think that was the case in this situation.

I see it over and over again. People will torture their loved ones who have no chance of any quality life just to delay the inevitable. They aren't curing the person, they aren't giving the person quality life, they aren't doing anything beneficial other than delaying their own pain. That has to be one of the most selfish acts that we have in today's society.

And I?m the one using ?scare tactics? because I don?t want the government or hospital policy making medical decisions instead of the family? Give me a break. And with all of the fraud and waste in government spending, to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars, your worried about the very few (relative) lost dollars in this specific case?

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Regier says the boy cannot breathe on his own, and that the tubes that help him breathe cause the infant so much pain that he is administered morphine.

I am not doctor, but if he can feel pain then wouldn?t that imply that he has some sort of cognitive ability?

I wouldn't consider pain a cognitive ability. Its more a sense. Fish can see, feel, but they don't really think.

 

[Luthien]

Along this same note I believe that euthanasia should be legal. The only reason it isn't is because of the religious threat of hell as well as a reasonable fear it could by abused. If I was lying in bed suffering from cancer and the outcome is determined and morphine can no longer control my pain I would like the right to end myself. Prisoners put to death with injections in the USA have an easier end than 99.9% of the rest of do.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Luthien
Along this same note I believe that euthanasia should be legal. The only reason it isn't is because of the religious threat of hell as well as a reasonable fear it could by abused. If I was lying in bed suffering from cancer and the outcome is determined and morphine can no longer control my pain I would like the right to end myself. Prisoners put to death with injections in the USA have an easier end than 99.9% of the rest of do.

hell. you wouldnt beleive how hard it is for chronic pain patients. many can NOT get the medication needed to control pain. To many doctors and such are afriad to give such high nrcotics out. So many suffer in pain.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: waggy
yes they need to deel with the loss. but it is going ot take years for that to happen. should the child be on the machine the whole time?

I think its the parents choice unless its proven that the child is in pain, then its different and gets messy. Regardless, it sounds to me like the boy can't feel pain. I think the doctors are full of sh!t on this one.

If you believe in the afterlife why keep the child in limbo? let him continue on with his journey.

Not everyone believes in an afterlife, what kind of presumptuous statement is this? Thats just retarded to argue unless you know that these people believe that.

What I believe is in the power of science and stem cell research. Who are you or anyone else to say that in 5 years, a cure won't be found for this precise condition? There is no reason to believe it can't happen, we can regrow brain tissue easily once stem-cell's are more readily available and funding is more readily available.

However, after playing the devils advocate on these issues I have to agree - it would be different if they had real insurance or if they could pay for it themselves. Being that the tax payer is paying to keep this child alive, you can't go by "what ifs". I just wanted to state how dumb it is to throw the afterlife argument in there when the article doesn't say anything about religion and its doubtful waggy knows these people personally.

 

[George P Burdell]

Originally posted by: waggy
The boy cannot breathe on his own and must have nutrition and water pumped into him. He can't swallow or gag or make purposeful movements, said Michael Regier, general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, which encompasses the children's hospital.

Emilio's higher order brain functions are destroyed, and secretions must be vigorously suctioned from his lungs, Regier said.

"The care is very aggressive and very invasive," Regier said.

I agree with the hospital. The child deserves to rest in peace.

"Every day that her son is alive and she gets to hold him and be next to him moving around is a precious day for her," Carden said.

WTF? What about the kid?

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: waggy
IF there was a chance the child could come back i woiuld be all for it. FACT is that IS NOT going to happen. EVER. No matter how long he stays on the machines he is never going to get better.

Your just making yourself look like a moron now. I bet people in 1920 got drunk on some illegal moonshine and were talking about man going to the moon. One of them probably said that would never happen too.

The miracle of science has no limit, know one can say if that would ever happen or not. It might not be fixable anytime soon and then it might be within 10 years. who knows?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: waggy
yes they need to deel with the loss. but it is going ot take years for that to happen. should the child be on the machine the whole time?

I think its the parents choice unless its proven that the child is in pain, then its different and gets messy. Regardless, it sounds to me like the boy can't feel pain. I think the doctors are full of sh!t on this one.

If you believe in the afterlife why keep the child in limbo? let him continue on with his journey.

Not everyone believes in an afterlife, what kind of presumptuous statement is this? Thats just retarded to argue unless you know that these people believe that.

What I believe is in the power of science and stem cell research. Who are you or anyone else to say that in 5 years, a cure won't be found for this precise condition? There is no reason to believe it can't happen, we can regrow brain tissue easily once stem-cell's are more readily available and funding is more readily available.

However, after playing the devils advocate on these issues I have to agree - it would be different if they had real insurance or if they could pay for it themselves. Being that the tax payer is paying to keep this child alive, you can't go by "what ifs". I just wanted to state how dumb it is to throw the afterlife argument in there when the article doesn't say anything about religion and its doubtful waggy knows these people personally.

read the link i posted not a few up.

"Gonzales says the boy responds to her voice and that the medical picture is not as dire as physicians claim. Regier says the boy cannot breathe on his own, and that the tubes that help him breathe cause the infant so much pain that he is administered morphine. "


the child is in a lot of pain. he is being given morphine. they don't give that out unless it is needed.

as for the religion who knows? i said IF i never said they did.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: waggy
IF there was a chance the child could come back i woiuld be all for it. FACT is that IS NOT going to happen. EVER. No matter how long he stays on the machines he is never going to get better.

Your just making yourself look like a moron now. I bet people in 1920 got drunk on some illegal moonshine and were talking about man going to the moon. One of them probably said that would never happen too.

The miracle of science has no limit, know one can say if that would ever happen or not. It might not be fixable anytime soon and then it might be within 10 years. who knows?

Nice try, I guess you stuck your hand out in hopes of grabbing the moron baton?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: waggy
IF there was a chance the child could come back i woiuld be all for it. FACT is that IS NOT going to happen. EVER. No matter how long he stays on the machines he is never going to get better.

Your just making yourself look like a moron now. I bet people in 1920 got drunk on some illegal moonshine and were talking about man going to the moon. One of them probably said that would never happen too.

The miracle of science has no limit, know one can say if that would ever happen or not. It might not be fixable anytime soon and then it might be within 10 years. who knows?

he is not going to get better. that is fact. while very sad it is fact. what he has IS going to kill him.

so you would keep him on a machine for 10 years? man. that is cruel.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: waggy
the child is in a lot of pain. he is being given morphine. they don't give that out unless it is needed.

I apologize somehow i missed that. Sixone's argument seemed valid though, it seemed to me like the doctors were contradicting themselves. First they said the child doesn't respond to anything, the mother argues that he does and moves to people's voice's - and then the doctors reverse their position and say that he feels pain and needs morphine? Which is it?

Anyway, as I said - as a parent if they could prove that he was in pain I'd let him go. I'd let him go any way, I just wouldn't want to be forced. But I'm not them

as for the religion who knows? i said IF i never said they did.

It should have never been used as an argument though. Unless they said "we believe there is an afterlife but don't believe he's ready" or something. You know a lot of christians believe that you have to be baptised before you go to heaven - which led a lot of people to wonder what happens if they die before that then. One of the reasons I think its dumb to believe, but that could have been a valid argument IF they had said something like that - and wanted to get him baptised first or something.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: waggy
he is not going to get better. that is fact. while very sad it is fact. what he has IS going to kill him.

How do you know that though? Are you an oracle of the future? Are you a stem cell researcher, or a geneticist (sp?) or someone of such calibur as to make this claim. Medical science is ever expanding and coming up with things exponentially quicker then ever, who is to say that we can't grow the guy a new brain in 10 years. I'm just making the argument because you can't say that

I remember reading one time about a guy on one of those old heart replacement machines and asked to be removed because he didn't want to live in a hospital. Then a couple years later the artificial heart came out and he could have lived a normal life - if he had waited a couple years. Actually it might have been fiction, I can't remember. Still....

so you would keep him on a machine for 10 years? man. that is cruel.

I wouldn't, I'm not the one in this situation.