Is it abuse to let a child die? Or try to keep it alive?

green

Is it abuse to let a child die? Or try to keep it alive?

I don't know green. I'd say its a case by case scenario with only those involved directly, making that judgement.
In this case, the doctors who've provided care in hospital since October, and presumably since birth, think it would be abusive to continue the childs suffering.
The parents disagree.
The courts agreed with the doctors and disagreed with the parents.
What is known is that either course will not change the outcome for the baby.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Apparently. See, we actually think the Constitution should set the boundaries of government. I know. I know--that's really an odd thought. It's called "limited government" and freedom of the individual, not the State, is its end.

Umm do you read what you write? The State is mandating car insurance on the individual. Your concern is not the mandate (a limit to individual freedom), but which level of the State imposes it.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt--unlike how you generally treat me--and presume you genuinely don't understand the purpose of the 10th Amendment. The Constitution grants enumerated powers to the Federal government. All other governing power is reserved to the States. So, States have the Constitutional right to mandate car insurance. The Federal government does not. States can mandate Medical insurance. The Federal government cannot.

Mine is not purely a philosophical objection to the Affordable Care Act, but a Constitutional one. The "level of the State" imposing a mandate is important because it is based on the Constitution.

rickyp wrote:green

Is it abuse to let a child die? Or try to keep it alive?

I don't know green. I'd say its a case by case scenario with only those involved directly, making that judgement.
In this case, the doctors who've provided care in hospital since October, and presumably since birth, think it would be abusive to continue the childs suffering.
The parents disagree.
The courts agreed with the doctors and disagreed with the parents.
What is known is that either course will not change the outcome for the baby.

The baby will die. That much seems assured.

However, the doctors are denying a request for a tracheotomy because it would cause pain to the child. Really? How can that be since they say he is basically brain dead?

Why not do the tracheotomy and let the parents take the child home?

How about take a pistol and put him down like a sick puppy?

I mean that sarcastically, of course. But to me that is what the Canadian Courts have ruled.

I wonder what other maladies they would consider reason to euthanize...

Hopefully an ACL injury is not terminal. The Maple Leafs would be short a couple players over the last two years...

No problem, those guys are probably Russians anyway.
real Canadian hockey players are too tough for a simple three letter injury

green

However, the doctors are denying a request for a tracheotomy because it would cause pain to the child. Really? How can that be since they say he is basically brain dead?
Why not do the tracheotomy and let the parents take the child home?

I don't know. The newspaper reports aren't detailed enough to explain the reasons they gave for their position in court. It seems that only the parents went to the press. .
I'll note that this has nothing to do with anything unique in Canada Green. The relationship between the doctor and the child patient can result in exactly the same court battle in other jurisdictions - including the States...
Perhaps whats different from the States is that the parents havn't had to worry about the cost of hospitalizing their infant, nor are they being pressed by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan to stop care. So they havn't faced the dilema of enduring care versus their financial health.
Its simply a battle between physician and parents...

As for the Leafs...they have had many players that perhaps should have been put down under compassionate reasons (Compassion for the long suffering fans that is...)

rickyp wrote:Its simply a battle between physician and parents...

If that is the case, why the court decision? The fact that a court is involved, makes your statement false.

green

If that is the case, why the court decision? The fact that a court is involved, makes your statement false

.

Hardly. It means that the doctors appealed to the courts in order to do their duty to their patient. In order to usurp the authority of the parents, they require an independent court to adjudicate.
But I suspect you comprehend this and are just being purposefully obtuse.

rickyp wrote:green

If that is the case, why the court decision? The fact that a court is involved, makes your statement false

.

Hardly. It means that the doctors appealed to the courts in order to do their duty to their patient.

"Their duty?"

So, it's "their duty" to starve the baby to death? What part of the Hippocratic oath is that?

In order to usurp the authority of the parents, they require an independent court to adjudicate.
But I suspect you comprehend this and are just being purposefully obtuse.

So, when our government promises that decisions will be made between a doctor and his/her patient, is this what we can look forward to? Doctors obeying government mandates to reduce cost and so going to court to starve us to death?

Sign me up!

Now, back on topic. This latest decision is absolutely breathtaking:

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power….However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

Seriously? So, deciding not to do something is the same as deciding to do something and therefore subject to the Commerce Clause?

In this judge's opinion, then, there is no limit on what the government can force citizens to do.

I decide NOT to buy a Chevrolet. That decision is a market activity. The government, therefore, has the capacity to order me to buy a Chevy.

steve

So, when our government promises that decisions will be made between a doctor and his/her patient

The patient is the baby.
In their view the doctors are representiing the babies interests and the parents have abandoned the childs best interests...
Because the London hospital could not get consent to remove the breathing tube from Joseph’s parents or other family members, it has the right to seek consent from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, said Mark Handelman, Maraachli’s lawyer.

I'm pretty sue that the case made in the original hearing and then again in court provided a significant medical report, and wasn't made on a whim.

steve

So, it's "their duty" to starve the baby to death?

Where did you come up with this? Once taken off the ventilator the baby is expected to stop breathing.
The condition of starving to death is more likely to occur if the baby has a trachetomy ...

Now, back on topic

So its now 5 court rulings, 3 in favour of the law being constitutional, 1 saying a part of it is unconstitutional and 1 saying the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Is there a trend developing?

rickyp wrote:Now, back on topic

So its now 5 court rulings, 3 in favour of the law being constitutional, 1 saying a part of it is unconstitutional and 1 saying the whole thing is unconstitutional.

Is there a trend developing?

Yeah, those declaring it Constitutional are having to make stuff up--like "mental activity" as "commerce."