This happened in America?

[Chuck S]

I think both articles bring ho one point. Bush, while Gov of TX signed this bill, yet in the Schiavo case, which also was a medicaid* case, he was on the side of keeping her alive. In the TX case, the persons family was not allowed to make the final decision, by signing that bill Bush overrode the family's decision. Yet when Ms. Schiavo's legal husband wanted end her suffering, the President also wanted to override the decision.

There is no way to know where Bush stands on this subject...he flips flops by whichever way the policital wind is blowing that day. That is the problem, and it is affecting the lives of individuals, as well as the rights of ther families to make final decisions.

* From the Slate
Who's paying for her care?
Schiavo resides at a nonprofit hospice that has assumed part of the cost of her care. Medicaid pays for the rest. According to this AP story, keeping her alive costs about $80,000 per year, and at least $350,000 of the malpractice settlement awarded to Schiavo and her husband in 1992 has been spent on her care. Florida Medicaid normally offers hospice coverage for those with a life expectancy of no more than six months, but Schiavo has received assistance from the state for the last two years.

 

[DawnCt1]

Perhaps lost in the "Republicans-like-to-kill-poor-people-and-even-more-so-if-they-are-minorities" meme is this thought: In countries that have the sort of nationalized health schemes that critics of the US system often point to as the "solution", would such a terminal end-of-life patient receive indefinite high-end care?

We already know that in such countries those patients go right to hospice. Its comfortable and humane. We also know in those countries, that those people, who could continue to be productive on some level are denied organ transplants over a certain age, and dialysis. There are lots of Americans who visit their dialysis clinic three times a week and are a pleasure to their families, go to work, care for children, etc. They would be relegated to hospice to die of renal failure. That's not a pleasant death.

 

[ecr110]

What I find disheartening about this incident is the coverage of Terry Schiavo's final days. If it was 'murder' to take Schiavo off the ventilator, how is it different in this case? Because this woman couldn't pay her medical bills whereas Schiavo's family could?

This isn't a slam on conservatives or liberals or the health care system- but it just seems to me that if one terminal patient being taken off of a ventilator was murder, then this one should be murder and people who were upset about that case should be upset about this one.....

 

[TDC Nala]

I'm not really on either side politically. I'm not devoted to either party. But I don't see how this is Bush's fault. Laws are never able to cover every individuality. If someone can prove to me that they're sitting in the White House reading that article and saying "Great! That's exactly the sort of thing we want to see happening," then fine.

 

[Chuck S]

We already know that in such countries those patients go right to hospice. Its comfortable and humane. We also know in those countries, that those people, who could continue to be productive on some level are denied organ transplants over a certain age, and dialysis. There are lots of Americans who visit their dialysis clinic three times a week and are a pleasure to their families, go to work, care for children, etc. They would be relegated to hospice to die of renal failure. That's not a pleasant death.

WHAT? Canada relegates relatively healthy and productive members of society that may be needing dialysis to hospice to die? Are you sure, about that Dawn?

 

[Puffy2]

People can claim all they want that "this isn't partisan" , just economics, blah, blah, blah, but the fact is W's state - Texas - with laws created while he was in office allowed this to happen AND , not only that, his hypocritical administration STILL had the balls to use Terri S. for political gain.

Culure of Life? BS. Culture of stuff our pockets with as much cash as possible and manipulate the Bible thumpers into thinking that we support their agenda is more like it.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think both articles bring ho one point. Bush, while Gov of TX signed this bill, yet in the Schiavo case, which also was a medicaid* case, he was on the side of keeping her alive. In the TX case, the persons family was not allowed to make the final decision, by signing that bill Bush overrode the family's decision. Yet when Ms. Schiavo's legal husband wanted end her suffering, the President also wanted to override the decision.

.

There are a number of things which set this case apart from the Schiavo case.
Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She required tube feeding to sustain her life. There is nothing "high tech" about that. Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She did not have a progressive, agressive illness that would kill her.
Her family was willing to pay for her to remain alive and in the nursing home. She was not unlike hundreds of patients acrossed the country living with severe brain damage. The husband also seemed to have "divided" interests, having pursued another life with another "wife".

 

[Geoff_M]

If it was 'murder' to take Schiavo off the ventilator, how is it different in this case?

For starters it wasn't that simple. Those against "pulling the plug" on Ms. Schiavo felt (though mis-guidedly):
1) She wasn't in a persistent vegatative state.
2) She was periodically responsive and might improve with time.
3) Her husband perhaps was trying to cover up abuse committed against her.

In order to be analagous, the family of the patient in the OP's link would have to believe that the woman didn't have end-stage cancer and/or was likely "cureable".

 

[DawnCt1]

WHAT? Canada relegates relatively healthy and productive members of society that may be needing dialysis to hospice to die? Are you sure, about that Dawn?

Did I mention Canada?? Furthermore, people who require dialysis could hardly be called "relatively healthy". They have a multitude of problems.

 

[Chuck S]

There are a number of things which set this case apart from the Schiavo case.
Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She required tube feeding to sustain her life. There is nothing "high tech" about that. Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She did not have a progressive, agressive illness that would kill her.
Her family was willing to pay for her to remain alive and in the nursing home. She was not unlike hundreds of patients acrossed the country living with severe brain damage. The husband also seemed to have "divided" interests, having pursued another life with another "wife".

But there are other differences, too. The Texas patient was CONSCIOUS, this patient KNEW her family had no choice but to let her die at the time of the state's choosing. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, unable to communicate. Ms. Schiavo had no hope or any recovery, she was in effect, brain dead. She may not have been "terminal", and could have survived for several years, but she was not "living."

 

[Chuck S]

Did I mention Canada?? Furthermore, people who require dialysis could hardly be called "relatively healthy". They have a multitude of problems.

Your post was in reply to Geoff's post

...countries that have the sort of nationalized health schemes that critics of the US system often point to as the "solution", would such a terminal end-of-life patient receive indefinite high-end care?

Most Americans point to Canade for an example of a nationalized health system. It is certainly to most applicable, as Canada is not a "third world" country, and is on the same continent as the US. Do you honestly think a nationalized system in the US would be more like Canada's or that of a poorer nation?

 

[DawnCt1]

But there are other differnces, too. The Texas patient was CONSCIOUS, this patient KNEW her family had no choice but to let her die at the time of the state's choosing. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, unable to communicate. Ms. Schiavo had no hope or any recovery, she was in effect, brain dead. She may not have been "terminal", and could have survived for several years, but she was not "living."

Terri Schiavo could have survived for many more years. DH's cousin was conscious too and knew that he was being removed from a ventilator. That doesn't change the fact that it was the best course of treatment for him and prevented weeks of needless suffering.

 

[Chuck S]

Terri Schiavo could have survived for many more years. DH's cousin was conscious too and knew that he was being removed from a ventilator. That doesn't change the fact that it was the best course of treatment for him and prevented weeks of needless suffering.

But it was, ultimately, the decision of the family of your DHs cousin, was it not? In the case of the Tx patient it was the states decision.

 

[DawnCt1]

Your post was in reply to Geoff's post

Most Americans point to Canade for an example of a nationalized health system. It is certainly to most applicable, as Canada is not a "third world" country, and is on the same continent as the US. Do you honestly think a nationalized system in the US would be more like Canada's or that of a poorer nation?

I think the US would certainly make the effort to maintain the same level of care we have now but the reality is, there are finite dollars and rationing choices would have to be made. That is a reality. In Canada there is absolutely a wait for elective surgery. The difference is, is what Americans think of as "elective" and what is considered "elective" in Canada. A hip replacement in some provinces is a one year wait. I have taken Caribbean cruises where the medical staff is primarily from Canada. They leave their practices for a month or two to "moonlight" on cruise lines. This serves two purposes. It supplements their income and prevents them for working for "free" when the province runs out of money to pay them. They therefore avoid "ill will" in turning patients away for whom they will not be reimbursed by simply "not being there". I have been told this by Canadian physicians on cruise ships. You will rarely find an American physician on a cruise ship because they cannot afford to leave thier practices for that length of time without a serious impact to their patients and their practice.

 

[DawnCt1]

But it was, ultimately, the decision of the family of your DHs cousin, was it not? In the case of the Tx patient it was the states decision.

But to maintain a terminally ill patient on life support is not a normal standard of care so nothing was done that was not within an appropriate standard of care for the situation.

 

[Chuck S]

But to maintain a terminally ill patient on life support is not a normal standard of care so nothing was done that was not within an appropriate standard of care for the situation.

To discontinue life support without the consent of the family is also not a "normal standard of care" in the US, is it? Your DHs family gave permisson, did they not? The family of the patient in TX was not allowed to make the same free choice.

 

[Charade]

But it was, ultimately, the decision of the family of your DHs cousin, was it not? In the case of the Tx patient it was the states decision.

No, it was the hospital's decision.

 

[Chuck S]

I think the US would certainly make the effort to maintain the same level of care we have now but the reality is, there are finite dollars and rationing choices would have to be made. That is a reality. In Canada there is absolutely a wait for elective surgery. The difference is, is what Americans think of as "elective" and what is considered "elective" in Canada. A hip replacement in some provinces is a one year wait. I have taken Caribbean cruises where the medical staff is primarily from Canada. They leave their practices for a month or two to "moonlight" on cruise lines. This serves two purposes. It supplements their income and prevents them for working for "free" when the province runs out of money to pay them. They therefore avoid "ill will" in turning patients away for whom they will not be reimbursed by simply "not being there". I have been told this by Canadian physicians on cruise ships. You will rarely find an American physician on a cruise ship because they cannot afford to leave thier practices for that length of time without a serious impact to their patients and their practice.

Average income for a medical doctor in Canada is $140,000. Certainly a living wage.

 

[Chuck S]

No, it was the hospital's decision.

A decision that they could not have made without using the state law that permitted it, signed by Gov. Bush.

 

[Puffy2]

You will rarely find an American physician on a cruise ship because they cannot afford to leave thier practices for that length of time without a serious impact to their patients and their practice.

What color is the sky in your world?

American physicans generally travel extensively - yes, on cruises too. Being a nurse and having worked with many, many physicians I know this to be a fact. They have wonderful vacactions - foreign, exotic, leisurely. Who treats their patients? The other docs in the practice, docs who trade call with other practices, and in one case NO ONE AT ALL (his patients were told to go to the ER if they had a problem).