This happened in America?

[DawnCt1]

Disney Doll, well said. You face the front lines everytime you go to work and deal with real life situations that most of us only "discuss". Providing care and comfort in all aspects of an illness, whether its the beginning or at the end of life is what nurses do best. Not every problem can be solved, not everyone can be fixed. It is a harsh reality that all of us have to accept, as unpleasant at it is.

 

[Chuck S]

Curious--is that $140,000 Canadian dollars? If so, not all that much for an average doc"s salary. Especially considering that most of them are weighed down with huge debt from med school.

$140,000 Canadian is approx. equal to $120,000 US dollars. Not "a lot" compared to US doctors, but certainly not the "Cinderella" type poverty, forcing them to take 2nd jobs on cruise ship that some would portray, either.

 

[DawnCt1]

$140,000 Canadian is approx. equal to $120,000 US dollars. Not "a lot" compared to US doctors, but certainly not the "Cinderella" type poverty, forcing them to take 2nd jobs on cruise ship that some would portray, either.

Chuck, I love your choice of the word "forced". No one is "forced". Its an option of staying home, seeing patients and not being paid if the funds have run out for your particular area or going to work on a cruise ship and getting paid.

 

[Planogirl]

I can speak from personal experience that the Texas legislature is one messed up group. Does anyone remember the Democrats fleeing to Oklahoma and that whole boondoggle? For which BOTH parties were responsible. That's just one goofy event of many.

That doesn't keep our governors from being just as idiotic both past and present. My dislike for Bush has as much to do with how he governed in Texas as how he plays the role of President today.

So there's no point in trying to put the responsibility only on the Texas legislature. The governor is responsible too.

ETA: This is in response to previous posts that placed the blame for this only on the Texas legislature. That's just too handy an excuse.

 

[Chuck S]

Chuck, I love your choice of the word "forced". No one is "forced". Its an option of staying home, seeing patients and not being paid if the funds have run out for your particular area or going to work on a cruise ship and getting paid.

Actually, there are more options than that, aren't there? They do NOT have to stay home...they could take a lovely non-working vacation somewhere which wouldn't include patients. I find it hard to believe, as is suggested by stating that the cruise ship contracts last for 30 to 60 days, that Canada stops funding it's health system for 2 months out of the year without some sort of stop-gap bill in place like the US does at budget time for essential services.

 

[damo]

Actually, there are more options than that, aren't there? They do NOT have to stay home...they could take a lovely non-working vacation somewhere which wouldn't include patients. I find it hard to believe, as is suggested by stating that the cruise ship contracts last for 30 to 60 days, that Canada stops funding it's health system for 2 months out of the year without some sort of stop-gap bill in place like the US does at budget time for essential services.

Perhaps, Dawn, you could post some source?

 

[DawnCt1]

Perhaps Dawn could post some source that this funding stop actually happens at all!

Damo, I can only tell you what two Canadian physicians have told me when I have had the opportunity to speak with them. The conversation goes something like;
"And what brings you to the Caribbean, besides this ship", and then they explain to me and DH what I have relayed to you. Its a conversation. I don't ask them to document their assertions, they basically said that it "beats working for free" and explained why.

 

[DawnCt1]

Actually, there are more options than that, aren't there? They do NOT have to stay home...they could take a lovely non-working vacation somewhere which wouldn't include patients..

Yes, except you don't get paid to take a lovely non working vacation.

 

[sha_lyn]

So there's no point in trying to put the responsibility only on the Texas legislature. The governor is responsible too.

ETA: This is in response to previous posts that placed the blame for this only on the Texas legislature. That's just too handy an excuse.

Actually, if you've followed the thread you'll see that many were trying to put the blame solely in the hands of GWB. I was pointing out that for the bill to make it to his desk, the state congress had to pass it. Never said it was solely congress, but many havew implied it was solely GWB

 

[JennaTX]

Just curious, for those of you who think this is fine, the family should have handled the cost, it is the law, taxpayers should not have to pay for this, etc.

Should there then not be any "charity" hospitals in this country? If you don't have health insurance than what?

Also, for everyone who supports what W signed into law here in Texas, would you like to move here, knowing that if something happens to you it is in the hospitals hands and not your choice, or your families choice??? Are you trying to make that a law in your state since you feel so passionately about it?

 

[Lil_Tink]

Didn't read posts. But that absoluty sickens me.

 

[sha_lyn]

The woman was dyng and would have been dead in a matter of days. The family refused other offers, such as moving her, or bringing the mother in. What in the hell did they want to keep her suffering for?

Tax payers IMHO should not be paying to keep the terminally ill alive on life support, when the $$ could be paying to save a life. This womans life could not be saved.

Should there then not be any "charity" hospitals in this country?

Charity hospitals are not "wefare" hospitals, they are funded by private charities.

If you don't have health insurance than what?

You get what you pay for

Also, for everyone who supports what W signed into law here in Texas, would you like to move here, knowing that if something happens to you it is in the hospitals hands and not your choice, or your families choice???

Well first of all, if I was a terminal cancer patient, by my choice I wouldn't be in the hospital on a ventilator. I would have already passed, either at home or in hospice. In never would have been the hospitals choice to make.
You try to make it sound as if hospitals are making the choice for everyone, that no one has a choice. Have any facts?

Are you trying to make that a law in your state since you feel so passionately about it?

Who is so passionate about it? Are you trying to get the law revoked in TX since you are so against it.

 

[JennyMominRI]

You get what you pay for


.

wow,Just wow
Are there no workhouses?

 

[sha_lyn]

So the family claims they were keeping her alive to see her mother, but refused to let the hospital pay for an immigration attorney. Makes no sense to me at all.

So for all of those against this... just how long should she have been left on the ventilator? Weeks, months, yrs. All of the time taking up resouces that could bu used to save a life instead of keeping one just out of the reach of death.

 

[Planogirl]

I read that the family only wanted to wait until the mother could get there before the ventilator was turned off. The hospital only gave 10 days and the mother could not be brought in within 10 days, attorney or not.

 

[sha_lyn]

For some reason the links aren't working, but when I do a search I can read the first few lines of several articles.
Many said she was actually on life support for 25 days. That once the hospital board voted, the family was given 10 days notice.

Oh and if you think the link given in the OP is bad, well you wouldn't believe the number of sites (opinion pieces) I found that want to make it all about the color of her skin.

 

[JennaTX]

Shalyn, you quoted me many times in you reply, so I wanted to respond.

If you look at my previous posts, I don't normally get involved in the whole conservative/republican debate.

In fact, I have no idea how you can choose certain text only to quote and then reply to, but I will do my best.

In Houston we have a "charity/welfare" hospital, Ben Taub, that is funded by the government, that is where all people without health insurance are sent. It may be supported by some private people, but the majority of it is funded by the taxpayers. So at least here there are "charity" hospitals.

Going with your idea of "you get what you pay for" most insurance plans have a maximum. So if something tragic happens to you, and you have reached your maximum payout, then what? You get what you pay for? Then we say to that person "sorry"?

Also, yes I am trying to get the law changed here in Texas. Are you trying to get the law changed in your state? So that the hospitals have a final say?

 

[sha_lyn]

In Houston we have a "charity/welfare" hospital, Ben Taub, that is funded by the government, that is where all people without health insurance are sent. It may be supported by some private people, but the majority of it is funded by the taxpayers. So at least here there are "charity" hospitals

I see no evidence that the hospital is ran by any charity. It is a state university hospital, operated by Baylor College of Medicine. It most likely received most of it's funding from medical school tuition, grants, etc than tax payers paying for non insured patients. I also found that many of the physicians are military.

So if something tragic happens to you, and you have reached your maximum payout, then what? You get what you pay for? Then we say to that person "sorry"?

like I said before, how long should the tax payers pay to keep someone on life support who has absolutely no chance in recovering? as I have already said.......If it had been me with terminal cancer I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE LIFE SUPPORT TO BEGIN WITH

Oh and I've searched for the law. Haven't been able to find it since no source is giving the name of the bill/law.
I did however find this

Salvi was stunned to get this hand-delivered notice invoking a complicated and rarely used Texas law where a doctor is "not obligated to continue" medical treatment "medically inappropriate" when care is not beneficial.

and this video
http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_348124802.html

From my understanding the law has nothing to do with inability to pay. It has to do with giving a hospital the right to discontinue treatment when the patient is not being benefited by the treatment.

 

[Mariposa]

You get what you pay for

Yeah, just... Wow. They should definitely put that in the Hippocratic Oath. I just hope that you or anyone you love are never in a situation where that kind of thinking could be used against you.


As for the situation in general, I feel terrible that the woman had to die knowing that the hospital wouldn't work with her family to find out exactly how long it would take to bring her mother to her and then set THAT as the number of days she would be kept alive.

And I know that this isn't supposed to be a political thread, but the decisions behind this ARE political. And list me amongst those who are sickened by our President's 'culture of life' wars in general, and ESPECIALLY now that it's made clear that they come from no great moral belief that any life is sacred... (Not that I'm shocked.)

 

[Olaf]

I read that the family only wanted to wait until the mother could get there before the ventilator was turned off. The hospital only gave 10 days and the mother could not be brought in within 10 days, attorney or not.

There were no plans to bring her from Africa, and I'm betting the family couldn't afford the trip.

Chuck, that $140,000/$120,000 figure is an average. That means there's a whole bunch of docs making a lot less than that. .