Should the Government or the Patient Decide What is Medically Necessary

  • Thread starter Thread starter HolySpirit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good for you.

Doesn’t mean you know patient care, and it does not mean that Schiavo’s family has breadth of experience.

God bless.
 
I certainly thinnk that that possibility is something we should factor into our thinking. But personally I also think it brings up issues which aren’t that clear cut.
 
Good for you.

Doesn’t mean you know patient care, and it does not mean that Schiavo’s family has breadth of experience.

God bless.
Well, her brother is now a bioethics professional … :confused:
 
That doesn’t make him a patient care expert when it comes to being a doctor/provider actually prescribing and carrying out the care.
 
Last edited:
That doesn’t make him a patient care expert when it comes to being a doctor/provider actually prescribing and carrying out the care.
No, but it makes him an expert in patient care when it comes to fighting the doctors/providers carrying out the “care.” 😉
 
Last edited:
So he knows about the orders and the long-term care and response of the patient? He has years of experience in hands on care and management of said patient?

No and no. You can get a degree in the abstract but that doesn’t make you a patient care expert. Having sat on ethics committee meetings I’m well aware of their role - and their limitations.

The role isn’t the same as knowing what happens and when and why and how to best manage the patient. They’re not the sole voice nor are they the final one.
 
Last edited:
So he knows about the orders and the long-term care and response of the patient? He has years of experience in hands on care and management of said patient?

No and no. You can get a degree in the abstract but that doesn’t make you a patient care expert. Having sat on ethics committee meetings I’m well aware of their role - and their limitations.

The role isn’t the same as knowing what happens and when and why and how to best manage the patient. They’re not the sole voice nor are they the final one.
I’m sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree.

I 100% support and trust the positions of the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Life Affirming Choices Faculty of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia Office for Life & Family.


http://phillycatholiclife.org/life-affirming-choices-3/faculty/

Plus, any opinions from the Catholic Medical Association http://www.cathmed.org

God bless
 
Last edited:
You can 100% support what you want, but a bioethicist is not a medical expert. They’re not medical doctors in any sense of the word - unless they are MDs.

They have a role at the table. They are not absolute, nor are they the last word. They generally serve in a consultant role. They don’t make the final decision, and can’t, nor should they.

The doc still signs the order. They do not.
 
That doesn’t mean the patient shouldn’t be allowed to seek treatment elsewhere. A patient is not forced to agree to a treatment plan.
 
No, they’re not, and no one is implying that. That’s not always the question, and generally isn’t.

Laws get stickier when minors are involved. It happens here as well. What most ethics committees get called for is appropriation of care - in other words, who’s going to pay and how. And yes, that’s what happens with private insurance - care isn’t a right, it’s appropriated.
 
Last edited:
Ok but who is ultimately responsible. I went to school with many people who are now physicians, some I wouldn’t trust to sell me a car. In this case it was also regarding them denying the parents the ability to seek care elsewhere. No one owns the life or rights of others.
 
True but with all respect to both sides it’s about people maintaining the boundaries of their respective roles. Bioethics experts aren’t necessarily physicians, but physicians also aren’t necessarily bioethicists. Unfortunately it comes down to people just taking it upon themselves to make decisions. Ultimately I believe it is the right of the patient, and if they are unable, the right of those on their behalf ( their parents in this case) to make those decisions. Not the health care providers. The providers can make treatment decisions, but denying the parents the opportunity to seek treatment elsewhere is, in my view, a denial of parental rights. It’s about power and respecting the patient.
 
Last edited:
True but with all respect to both sides it’s about people maintaining the boundaries of their respective roles. Bioethics experts aren’t necessarily physicians, but physicians also aren’t necessarily bioethicists. Unfortunately it comes down to people just taking it upon themselves to make decisions. Ultimately I believe it is the right of the patient, and if they are unable, the right of those on their behalf ( their parents in this case) to make those decisions. Not the health care providers. The providers can make treatment decisions, but denying the parents the opportunity to seek treatment elsewhere is, in my view, a denial of parental rights. It’s about power and respecting the patient.
None of that entered my mind at any point.

The bioethicist has a role, but ultimately, the doctor signs the orders and the hospital legal team will decide what the outcome is - if you want what actually occurs.

They are the actual ones calling the shots. But a bioethicist is not the final speaker on treatment at any time.

I wonder how many people would’ve been supportive if the NHS had let the patient be moved - and he’d died, with the NHS legally, morally, and ethically responsible for that death.

There was no treatment to be had, so I guess suffocating in flight was the preferred outcome.
 
Last edited:
Yes I understand they are the ones calling the shots. However that is exactly the point. It should be the parents who make the ultimate decision assuming they are of sound mind etc. Denying them the ability to seek treatment elsewhere when there are medical facilities willing to treat him, is taking it upon themselves to determine the fate of the patient, not simply making a determination of the treatment THEY are willling to provide. A decision which, I would imagine, involves consideration of costs, transport, responsibility, etc. But this also opens the door for conflict of interest (ie payment, or faith contradictions). This is why it, in my way of thinking falls upon the parents, not the providers, to make the ultimate decision. I believe the providers and the state denied the family this right in this circumstance. As Phil stated I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Referencing the point of “I guess the preferred outcome is to suffocate in flight” (my apologies I don’t know how to quote on this forum) we don’t know the outcome. He might have, he also might have made it just fine. It’s a case if a certain fate versus a potential one.

Phew anyway I do appreciate your insights and expertise in this debate, it has definitely helped me gain some insight and perspective, thank you for this Pup it’s much appreciated. I need to get to bed however, I’ll take a look tomorrow. Have a good evening.and thanks for a great debate.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the Catholic Church supports giving futile treatment. In fact I think it is against church teaching to continue to do so.
So if the parents wanted to turn off the life support machine then it wouldn’t be against Catholic teaching if the parents and doctors agree that it is futile treatment.
The difficulty in this case I think is whether the state can go against the wish of the parents who doesn’t think it is futile treatment.
So the question may be this: who decides whether a treatment is futile or not?
 
This is why it, in my way of thinking falls upon the parents, not the providers, to make the ultimate decision. I believe the providers and the state denied the family this right in this circumstance.
The state did not go against the wishes of the parents.

The NHS is not the state.

HM’s Courts are not the government.

So parents know more than doctors? It’s amazing how people will bring that up, but when parents DON’T want to treat their kids because of personal belief or religious stance, people immediately think there should be legal intervention to force the hand of the parent.
It’s a case if a certain fate versus a potential one.
If moving him caused seizures - which it was stated by Alder Hey it did - I can promise you flight was a very bad idea, and would likely have been fatal.
 
Last edited:
I would question whether parents who fall into a must keep child alive at all costs mindset and who stop listening to information from the doctors that they don’t want to hear are in a place to make sound decisions for their child.
 
Not always. No it’s not. It depends on a multitude of factors. And as I said, you don’t know his entire status any more than I do.
Perhaps nutrition and hydration (for someone who can process it) are not always ordinary care according to a certain hospital rules, but they certainly are according to Catholic teaching.
 
The bioethicist has a role, but ultimately, the doctor signs the orders and the hospital legal team will decide what the outcome is - if you want what actually occurs.

They are the actual ones calling the shots. But a bioethicist is not the final speaker on treatment at any time.
The treating doctor is not the final speaker either.
The patient is (or the parent on his behalf)

I will share my experience. My mother had been battling various forms of cancer for years. She had designated me to have power of attorney for medical purposes.
When she entered the hospital at one particular time the hospital staff badgered her repeatedly to sign a do not intubate ((DNI) /do not resuscitate (DNR) order. Being a woman who was extremely close to God, and having lived a life full of suffering and joy, she did not feel the Holy Spirit was calling her to give up the fight at that time.
It was her suffering and prayers to God that converted me after decades of mortal sin. The ER doctor went into her room and had a conversation which I witnessed. He said “You know how when we get older we don’t want to be a burden to our loved ones?” My mother said yes… Then the doctor said “You don’t want to be a burden to your children, do you?” My mother answered no…

He then went directly out to the nurse’s station and changed it to DNR DNI, without ever directly asking her if she wanted it changed. Again this followed 3 days of constant badgering to try to make her change her decision to DNR DNI to which she always responded that she wanted to be resuscitated.

After about an hour I realized what he had done. I discussed with my mom if she had changed her mind about being resuscitated… she had not. I had to go to the nurse’s station to change it back. They said she was now too sedated to make that decision. So I had to show them the power of attorney document to force them to comply with the expressed wishes of my mother.

Later when she slipped into a coma I had to “remind” the hospital staff to turn her O2 back on after it somehow was turned off (with a rest in peace note next to her bed).

You see her suffering was never in vain. It obtained my conversion back to God, and likely many others. During her last hospital stay she was able to do many wondrous things. She saw her guardian angels. She told me of the twin children my wife and I would have years later. She was able to correct my sibling in the sin he was holding on to, and she grew in trust of God’s mercy.

Eventually I had to make the decision to stop nutrition when her body/organs shut down and was not sustaining her but rather causing a burden. But I don’t know why people can not admit that the order to take away nutrition for Alfie 8+ months before his death was not wrong. The fact that he lived 8 months processing that nutrition says without a doubt it was the wrong call at that time.
 
Last edited:
But I don’t know why people can not admit that the order to take away nutrition for Alfie 8+ months before his death was not wrong. The fact that he lived 8 months processing that nutrition says without a doubt it was the wrong call at that time.
Providing hydration and nutrition to others is, according to Catholic teaching, ordinary care. This is true because every human person in the course of their lives is fed by others.

We are obliged to provide ordinary care to others. We are obliged to feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty. When are we not so obliged? Only when doing so causes more harm than good. That is a prudential decision. Men of good will may differ.

However, one may never withhold ordinary care if, by doing so, one intends to accelerate the death of another. It does not matter if the other is, or is not, in a terminal state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top