Death Panels..Canadian Style

[Newby]

After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.

---------------------

Last week Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto family’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.

In other words: Canada has death panels.

Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.

He is practically dead. He cannot be saved. Keeping him alive drains the healthcare system - the taxpayers. If they want to keep him alive, pay for his treatment. If not, pull the plug.

Exactly. Canada has nationalized medical care. The government, the taxpayer, is paying for this man's treatment. To keep him alive when there is no hope of recovery drains money out of the health care system. The family's desire to keep him on life support is an emotional decision; the doctor's decision to take him off life support is a logical, practical decision. Also, as has been noted, this is the same in the US, essentially. If a family insists on keeping someone with no chance of recovery on life support, the hospital can take the case to court and have the court decide. Unless a family is paying for all the expenses, they should not have the right to prolong life when there is no chance of recovery and force the taxpayer to foot the bill for their emotional decision and inability to let the patient die a natural death.

And what about the elderly patient who is diagnosed with terminal cancer or heart disease, or any other illness? They're going to be a drain on 'the system' as well, right? They're old anyway, and don't contribute financially to society any longer, so why waste money giving them health care. Just keep them comfortable with a few pain meds and let nature take its course, right? Is that okay too? If not, what distinguishes any of those scenarios from the one you described above?

 

[bendog]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

 

[Neotrotsky]

No one denies scarce resources
which one would be better at having the best quality
and deliver the most goods to the most people?

Gov't or a true free market?

 

[GHook93]

After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.

---------------------

Last week Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto family’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.

In other words: Canada has death panels.

Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.

For those who actually WON'T read the article, and there will be MANY:

".......At issue in the Ontario case was the fate of Hassan Rasouli, a retired engineer who has been comatose in a Toronto hospital since he suffered complications following brain surgery three years ago. When Rasouli’s doctors determined that he had no reasonable prospect of recovery, they sought to pull the plug. His family, convinced that Rasouli was slowly recovering, took his doctors to court.

Last Friday, they won. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5–2 that Ontario doctors may not decide to withhold treatment from patients in Rasouli’s condition without consent from the next-in-line decision maker.

In Rasouli’s case, that is his wife. But, if she refuses consent, then her husband’s doctors can still ask for a ruling from Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board. The Supreme Court confirmed last week that the board has the power to overrule her.""""

""""....But American critics of Canadian health care will declare that merely asking this question is unacceptable, unethical, even unthinkable—and that it proves that the Canadian system gives doctors a dangerous incentive to kill off their patients as quickly as possible. They are wrong.""

Sorry, dumbass. Apparently you don't read either.

Are you just willful ignorant, very young and ignorant or just retarded? The ruling said that a doctor can't make the decision to pull the plug against the next-of-kin or prior wishes of the patient. HOWEVER, the court did say that the Consent and Capacity Board can and does have the right to authorize pulling the plug against the next-of-kin or PATIENT'S wishes.

That is almost worst. A doctor at least has dealt with the family and the patients. He has experienced their pain first hand and has to discuss with the in person. There is the human element. A faceless government board who has never met the family, met the patient and has ZERO emotional ties to the case is set to make the decision. You think they are looking at what is best for the family or best for the bottomline. You think they are judged by their cost cuting and budget meeting or by satisfying people's wishes that never make it into any reports. They won't meet the family, they won't see the patient, they won't hear the patient's story and all they have to do is have their secretary write a letter!

It's worse, you almost want the doctor making the decision over a faceless board with no ties to the case looking solely to cut costs!

Last Friday, they won. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5–2 that Ontario doctors may not decide to withhold treatment from patients in Rasouli’s condition without consent from the next-in-line decision maker. In Rasouli’s case, that is his wife. But, if she refuses consent, then her husband’s doctors can still ask for a ruling from Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board. The Supreme Court confirmed last week that the board has the power to overrule her.

Most media coverage of the Canadian ruling has focused on the first part—that doctors cannot overrule family members—rather than the second—that an administrative tribunal can. Most Ontarians are evidently content with—or indifferent to, or simply ignorant of—the fact that the Consent and Capacity Board has the power to make difficult, even existential health care decisions on behalf of patients who are still (technically) alive. Americans, I expect, would be apoplectic.

 

[Newby]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

As soon as a price tag is put on the value of life, evil has won.

 

[GHook93]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

My mother was told she was terminally cancerous and told her that chemo probably won't help. She elected to try it and hope for the best. She beat the odds and 11 years later is still here.

 

[Steven_R]

Ew.

As I've always said, the death cultists know that they're advocating murder. They just don't care.

A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

I am always amazed at the people who just decide a policy trumps human life, and in the case of so many policies, will mathematically ensure death for untold numbers of people. The thing is, the people who advocate those polices just never assume their loved ones will ever be in the "got to die" category, so what do they care? It comes down to playing God by deciding who lives and who dies.

 

[tinydancer]

Everyone pays taxes, but they get used up for other things, not medical treatment necessarily.
Sorry, if you want to stay alive even when there is no hope of a recovery, you can pay the bill, or your family can.

I've been a paying customer to my Health Insurer for decades. The company AKA the Canadian Government is obligated to take care of my health while I am alive.

And btw the taxes we pay in Canada for the "privilege" of "free health care" are very high.

Reading all your posts Noomi, I don't know what you do for a living now, but you are truly suited to be on a death panel.

You have the perfect callous and cold hearted attitude to be an executioner errrrrrrrr panelist .

This lady and America needs you!

Here's where you can send your resume:

US Department of Health & Human Services
Address: 200 Independence Ave SW, Washington, D.C., DC 20201, United States
Phone:+1 202-690-7000
Hours:

Monday 8:30 am – 5:00 pm

 

[Neotrotsky]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

My mother was told she was terminally cancerous and told her that chemo probably won't help. She elected to try it and hope for the best. She beat the odds and 11 years later is still here.

I like to hear good stories like yours.
good for you and your family
you are blessed

 

[Neotrotsky]

Ew.

As I've always said, the death cultists know that they're advocating murder. They just don't care.

A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

I am always amazed at the people who just decide a policy trumps human life, and in the case of so many policies, will mathematically ensure death for untold numbers of people. The thing is, the people who advocate those polices just never assume their loved ones will ever be in the "got to die" category, so what do they care? It comes down to playing God by deciding who lives and who dies.

They even assume that somehow the "womb" will be hands off
from the gov't.

 

[bendog]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

My mother was told she was terminally cancerous and told her that chemo probably won't help. She elected to try it and hope for the best. She beat the odds and 11 years later is still here.

I'm glad for you. But the question is why should I pay for it. The premise behind insurance is that there is a set ( or group) of conditions that have treatments that have some % of efficacy in allowing people to live some extended time. These treatments have a dollar cost. Premiums are based upon paying that cost, along with a profit margin ... which could be regulated or in a single payor there is only administrative costs.

If I want an experimental treatment, or some treatment not shown to have the % of efficacy, I can have it, but others don't have to pay for it.

 

[tinydancer]

He is practically dead. He cannot be saved. Keeping him alive drains the healthcare system - the taxpayers. If they want to keep him alive, pay for his treatment. If not, pull the plug.

Exactly. Canada has nationalized medical care. The government, the taxpayer, is paying for this man's treatment. To keep him alive when there is no hope of recovery drains money out of the health care system. The family's desire to keep him on life support is an emotional decision; the doctor's decision to take him off life support is a logical, practical decision. Also, as has been noted, this is the same in the US, essentially. If a family insists on keeping someone with no chance of recovery on life support, the hospital can take the case to court and have the court decide. Unless a family is paying for all the expenses, they should not have the right to prolong life when there is no chance of recovery and force the taxpayer to foot the bill for their emotional decision and inability to let the patient die a natural death.

And what about the elderly patient who is diagnosed with terminal cancer or heart disease, or any other illness? They're going to be a drain on 'the system' as well, right? They're old anyway, and don't contribute financially to society any longer, so why waste money giving them health care. Just keep them comfortable with a few pain meds and let nature take its course, right? Is that okay too? If not, what distinguishes any of those scenarios from the one you described above?

They paid into the system. You don't get away with not paying into the system. It's the way it is for free health care you see.

I could if I was such a cold hearted soul make the case that because I have been a good paying customer all my life, the government owes me and not a child with leukemia or MS who might never ever become a paying tax payer.

Here's where we've not only hit the slippery slope we have slid to the bottom and are digging farther down.

All one has to do is to look at the NHS in Britain. They have what's called the "Liverpool Pathway".

It was originally designed to assist people in as painless way as possible to help people exit their life.

Sounded great on paper. Guess what? Huge scandal. The government found out that hospitals were getting bonuses for "helping people on their way" and freeing up more beds.

Some bean counter will always find a way to screw up perfectly well intentioned programs.

 

[Noomi]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

My mother was told she was terminally cancerous and told her that chemo probably won't help. She elected to try it and hope for the best. She beat the odds and 11 years later is still here.

That is a tough one because sometimes, doctors can get it wrong - but rarely. 90% of the time, if you have terminal cancer, chemo won't help.
Your mother was the exception.

 

[Newby]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

My mother was told she was terminally cancerous and told her that chemo probably won't help. She elected to try it and hope for the best. She beat the odds and 11 years later is still here.

That is a tough one because sometimes, doctors can get it wrong - but rarely. 90% of the time, if you have terminal cancer, chemo won't help.
Your mother was the exception.

The point is, it's her body, so she should be able to pick the treatment she wants and make her own CHOICES, a word you pro abortionists are very familiar with. The government shouldn't be making her decision for her. You can't preach 'CHOICE' out of one side of your mouth, and 'MANDATE' out of the other. Well, you can, but it just shows your agenda for what it truly is. Do you really care about a woman's choice to control her own body and her own health care, or do you only care when it fits your agenda?

 

[Noomi]

Yes, she should be able to make her own choices - but should she able to choose to make the taxpayers pay for treatment that isn't going to help her? I think that when we expect people to just hand over thousands of dollars in taxes for something that will not work, the person should be asked to pay for it themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

The point is, it's her body, so she should be able to pick the treatment she wants and make her own CHOICES, a word you pro abortionists are very familiar with. The government shouldn't be making her decision for her. You can't preach 'CHOICE' out of one side of your mouth, and 'MANDATE' out of the other. Well, you can, but it just shows your agenda for what it truly is. Do you really care about a woman's choice to control her own body and her own health care, or do you only care when it fits your agenda?

The government doesn't make any decisions for you. You pick your doctors and your doctor determines your treatment. If you want a particular type of treatment, and your doctor agrees with you, then that's what you get.

There are no pre-approvals, and there is no paperwork to complete when you're done. The doctor bills OHIP.

If you want services that aren't listed, like cosmetic surgery, you have to pay for them yourself, but you still have the option of getting the services you want. And the costs for unlisted services are still cheaper than the US.

 

[Neotrotsky]

ST. JOHN'S, Newfoundland — The premier of Canada's east coast province is undergoing heart surgery in the United States this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province.

 

[Newby]

Yes, she should be able to make her own choices - but should she able to choose to make the taxpayers pay for treatment that isn't going to help her? I think that when we expect people to just hand over thousands of dollars in taxes for something that will not work, the person should be asked to pay for it themselves.

Anything before 'but' is typically a lie. The doctor's don't even know if a treatment will help a patient or not before the treatment is done. It's not up to you, the government, or anyone besides her and her doctor to determine what treatment is right for her or not. Or are you putting a cost on life? An unborn child's life is meaningless to you, so it goes that human life itself is meaningless as well. The hypocrisy of your stance on this situation compared to your stance on abortion is glaring and revealing. I'm guessing you would be just fine for the taxpayer paying for someone's abortion too, even tho I feel an abortion is not going to 'help' any woman in any situation.

 

[Katzndogz]

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible? Or do I misunderstand?

My mother was told she was terminally cancerous and told her that chemo probably won't help. She elected to try it and hope for the best. She beat the odds and 11 years later is still here.

I'm glad for you. But the question is why should I pay for it. The premise behind insurance is that there is a set ( or group) of conditions that have treatments that have some % of efficacy in allowing people to live some extended time. These treatments have a dollar cost. Premiums are based upon paying that cost, along with a profit margin ... which could be regulated or in a single payor there is only administrative costs.

If I want an experimental treatment, or some treatment not shown to have the % of efficacy, I can have it, but others don't have to pay for it.

The reason why you should pay for it, is because that cancer patient paid into the system herself, for someone else that she may have felt shouldn't have received that treatment. Sex change operations for prisoners, abortions, pacemakers for those on death row, organ transplants for alcoholics and drug addicts, drug treatment programs. It's a long list of treatments and procedures that not everyone agrees with providing or paying for. We are lied to and told that when we need lifesaving treatment it will be there on the basis of having paid into the system.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The government doesn't make any decisions for you. You pick your doctors and your doctor determines your treatment.

And if you like your insurance, you can keep it....

The lies you leftists tell. You don't get to "pick" your doctor, you won't even see a doctor. A PA will supervise a host of "technicians" with little to no medical training. The person who treats you will have certificate from some school that advertises on daytime TV and funds students with Obamabucks - no high school diploma needed. Ebonics encouraged!

If you want a particular type of treatment, and your doctor agrees with you, then that's what you get.

And magic lolipops and flying horses....

There are no pre-approvals, and there is no paperwork to complete when you're done. The doctor bills OHIP.

If you want services that aren't listed, like cosmetic surgery, you have to pay for them yourself, but you still have the option of getting the services you want. And the costs for unlisted services are still cheaper than the US.

And, if you are a bit older than the guidelines accept, treatment will be withheld - you have an obligation to die...