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.
Well Dr. Torres did have her sources in medical literature. Regardless, her argument that purposefully killing human beings is moral if they are pain free is invalid.

I am currently watching a video of an American woman who is taking care of her 26 year old son(one like Alfie who had an undiagnosed neurological disorder at 11 months ) on a vent at home! Wow! As a caregiver I can say this man is immaculately cared for because his loving family(Catholic judging by the religious icons) recognize that he has inherent dignity and the right to life by being made in the Image of God, not because his life is ideal.
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
Regardless, her argument that purposefully killing human beings is moral if they are pain free is invalid
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Who could say it wasn’t?

But the statement that an embryo doesn’t feel pain isn’t valid. She’s a nutcase anyway.
 
Last edited:
That vent requires home care by a respiratory therapist - she can’t manage it - and we have no way of knowing if the circumstances are the same.

We know moving Alfie caused seizures.
 
But I thought another poster said cases like him would be bumped off the insurance plan for continued care…hmmm.
 
No, that is not what was said. :woman_facepalming:t3::woman_facepalming:t3: Not as a blanket statement. And if it WAS said, I assure you they were mistaken.

That can happen if the policy has a lifetime care cap. Usually what happens is cases like that get put on Medicaid, which as that patient is 26 is likely the case.
 
Last edited:
Dont use the death of this child to make it seem like gross abuses did not or do not occur in the US insurance system. It is an utterly meritless argument.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
phil19034:
However, there was a hospital willing to take him
Click to expand...
IIRC a statement was released near the end that the hospital in Italy had actually sent a medical team and they had decided they could not provide treatment, only the same end of life care. There are too many jillions of threads to read through to find the link to that one blurb. Maybe someone else remembers it?
Click to expand...
True. They were willing to provide the same end of life care, which the UK wanted to stop.

I just listened to Patrick Madrid talk about this on Relevant Radio. According to Patrick, the judge gave permission for the judge to end ORDINARY care by pulling his assisted nutrition & hydration.

This was at the beginning of his show.

 
No doubt private U.S. insurance needs improvement but a 2 year old was bumped off the “insurance” in the U.K. 26 year old still on the vent (AT HOME even) versus 2 year old taken off interventional measures. Yeah…thats kind of a big difference and it definitely shows how much socialist healthcare systems value the disabled. “Their lives cost more to keep alive then they will ever bring us. They are a liability best to cut short.”
 
Kind of ironic how the guy ringing in accused his brother in law of knowing nothing about the case when he himself interpreted the judge’s comments to mean the exact opposite of what the judge actually meant.

Also, Patrick just accused the doctors of trying to starve Alfie to death. Wow. His name calling and judgementalism is absolutely disgraceful considering he hasn’t a clue why any of the medical decisions were made. Perhaps he is unaware that the bishops in the UK are on the hospitals side. Regardless, I don’t think I can take him seriously if that is the kind of thing he does on his radio show. He also left out some key facts, like moving the baby would cause seizures and the flight alone could kill him.

I’d like pup7 to weigh in on why antibiotics might have been withheld for the infection the vent caused. That one was new to me.

As has been established ad nauseum, part of palliative care it is perfectly valid to halt nutrition if it will increase discomfort. None of us know why it was done, but the UK has a good history with medical ethics thus far. I have no idea why they would suddenly go from Jeckyl to Hyde and try and starve a baby they had been fighting to save for months. Or why they would suddenly euthanise him when in the UK that is HIGHLY ILLEGAL.

Patrick Madrid ought not pump out these uninformed ideas and conspiracy theories. He will lead people astray and is doing a gross injustice to the doctors and judge.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
Perhaps he is unaware that the bishops in the UK are on the hospitals side.
Click to expand...
I know the bishops in the UK are receiving a lot of heat right now from Catholic leaders around the world.

The Vatican Secretary of State said it was incomprehensible to block Alfie Evans’s relocation to Italy.
 
They are different cases, one. You have no idea how one patient’s diagnosis and prognosis compares to anothers from a youtube video. And for profit insurance was and is notorious for cutting off care or not accepting sick people to begin with. Sick people dont need “go fund me” drives to pay for cancer treatment in Europe, Canada or many other countries. And it was one case in the US you dont know the details of. The family could be wealthy. Or the patient was on medicaid. It was estimated that 18,000 or even more (one study pegged it closer 45,000) lives lost due to the flaws in the American system per year that would have been saved in a hypothetical universal scenario. Just look at how much lower infant mortality is in the UKthan US.
 
They did NOT stop end of life care.

They GAVE IT.

Please look up what defines palliative and EOL care.
 
The Vatican Secretary of State isn’t a physician and has no more knowledge of the child’s condition than the rest of the general public.

Sometimes even the Vatican needs to think before it speaks. This is one of those times. It’s condemning its own constituency in a way.
 
Last edited:
Just to hasten his death? Italy wasn’t offering treatment. The decision to keep him where he was was based on the fact that no one could offer anything other than palliative care. The bishop of Liverpool would be informed by the hospital chaplain so I’m going to assume his opinion has more relevant knowledge behind it.
 
Pup7 said:
They did NOT stop end of life care.

They GAVE IT.

Please look up what defines palliative and EOL care.
Click to expand...
I know what ordinary care is. I’m still trying to find what machine they turned off? Nothing official I’ve read has indicated what they turned off.

However, other things I’ve read was that they turned off assisted nutrition and hydration.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
Just to hasten his death? Italy wasn’t offering treatment. The decision to keep him where he was was based on the fact that no one could offer anything other than palliative care. The bishop of Liverpool would be informed by the hospital chaplain so I’m going to assume his opinion has more relevant knowledge behind it.
Click to expand...
Right… but ORDINARY palliative care cannot be withheld unless it isn’t working.

What I’ve read, the Catholic chaplain at the hospital was just transferred back to London (a different diocese) because he said the hospital was 100% wrong.
 
Are you referring to the lifesitenews article that misleadingly referred to an Italian priest who was stationed in London and sent to Alfie’s parents by an Italian bishop as a ‘chaplian’?

TBH if I was the bishop of Liverpool I would not appreciate another bishop usurping my authority like that. However this italian priest was not Alder Heys chaplain. Unless you are referring to another incident I haven’t been able to find on Google?

As an aside, I generally steer clear of life site news. The article I’m referring to is a horrible example of vicious emotive biased journalism.
 
phil19034 said:
However, other things I’ve read was that they turned off assisted nutrition and hydration.
Click to expand...
Standard of practice for end of life care. Standard of practice with death considered imminent once a ventilator is removed.
phil19034 said:
Right… but ORDINARY palliative care cannot be withheld unless it isn’t working.
Click to expand...
He was not getting palliative care when they pulled the ventilator. Palliative care stops when the ventilator is discontinued and death is believed to be imminent.

He was getting the equivalent of hospice care. End of life care.

There is a very large difference.

I believe I myself am guilty of using these terms interchangeably because we do where I’m from - but they’re different ICD-10 codes (billing codes for diagnoses used worldwide) and different diagnoses.

I believe Shrodingers Cat asked why the antibiotic was held. If your death is imminent, antibiotics aren’t going to help. Someone spending 16-18 months completely ventilated is going to have had multiple bouts of pneumonia and other infections - it comes with the territory and is eventually inevitable. At the end, they likely held the antibiotic because there’s no point in giving it.
 
Last edited:
Was he suffering from artificially provided nutrition and hydration?
 
phil19034 said:
I know the bishops in the UK are receiving a lot of heat right now from Catholic leaders around the world.
Click to expand...
The bishops in the UK have far more knowledge of what’s actually occurred from a Church standpoint than anyone else does. Possibly including us.

The Vatican SECSTATE commenting is tantamount to US SECSTATE Mike Pompeo giving his opinion on the medical status of President George H W Bush.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top