toldailytopic: 'Baby Joseph' Gets Second Chance at Life in U.S.

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for March 14th, 2011 12:56 PM

toldailytopic: 'Baby Joseph' Gets Second Chance at Life in U.S.

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The little baby that's captivating the worlds attention...

The baby who was hours from being pulled off life support at his Canadian hospital has been rescued by the national director of Priests for Life and taken to the U.S. for treatment. Thirteen-month-old Joseph Maraachli, who is currently kept alive by a respirator and was recently denied a transfer to a Michigan hospital to undergo a tracheotomy, arrived in the U.S. early Monday morning with Fr. Frank Pavone and other Priests for Life staff. "Priests for Life staff toiled through the night for many nights, working in concert with dozens of people to make this possible," Father Pavone said in a statement. "Now that we have won the battle against the medical bureaucracy in Canada, the real work of saving Baby Joseph can begin." Maraachli was on his way to SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, Mo., a non-profit health-care facility open to all children in need of medical care. The boy suffers from a rare, progressive neurological disease which, Canadian doctors say, has left him in a vegetative state beyond recovery. He has been at the Children’s Hospital in London, Ontario, since the fall. Priests for Life says it represents a family of ministries that "reach and enrich every aspect of the pro-life movement," according to its website. The group has been strong advocates for the boy's release and critical of his treatment in Canada. "The medical board overseeing his case is apparently convinced that giving proper care to 'Baby Joseph' is futile," the website reads. "They don’t mean that the medical care won’t help him. They mean his life in its current condition isn’t worth the trouble." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/13/baby-joseph-gets-second-chance-life/#ixzz1GbND6DVV

What are your thought's on this issue?

 

[Dena]

Am I missing something?

 

[Dena]

Ah, okay, there it it. Just from that article I'm not sure what to think. What do his parents want? Are they around?

 

[The Berean]

From what I read the boy's parents wanted to keep their son on a respirator but Canadian hospital where the boy was at said no. Then the Canadian court agreed with the doctors. Excuse but don't parents have the final say, not doctors? :bang:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ah, okay, there it it. Just from that article I'm not sure what to think. What do his parents want? Are they around?

There is more on the story here.

“Monday at 10 am. they will kill my baby,” Moe Maraachli, Joseph’s father, had told LifeSiteNews shortly after the ruling. “There’s no more humanity. There’s no more chance. I’ve tried everything for him. No more appeals, nothing.”

 

[lucybelle]

I think the Priests are in a good place... If the baby lives, thank God they got him in time to save him here in America. If the baby dies, it's universal healthcare and the Canadian "death panel" that will get the blame.

Don't misunderstand - I do not like universal healthcare - for this very reason. No one should be able to determine whether or not another person should receive medical treatment, although I can see the attraction to that power.

I feel sorry for the Canadians who had to make that call - it totally sucks to be them.

 

[Dena]

Okay, I don't understand why they won't just do the procedure and let the child go home with his parents. It's too risky? Well gee, taking him off the respirator will kill him so what difference does it make?

 

[Dena]

Don't misunderstand - I do not like universal healthcare - for this very reason. No one should be able to determine whether or not another person should receive medical treatment, although I can see the attraction to that power.

It happens without universal healthcare too.

 

[lucybelle]

Okay, I don't understand why they won't just do the procedure and let the child go home with his parents. It's too risky? Well gee, taking him off the respirator will kill him so what difference does it make?

It's not just "too risky" - the likely outcome in their opinion is not success. This isn't the first child they will have lost to this disease. So, instead of spending the large amounts of money and time it will take to do the operation, they're choosing to not.

It's gross.

At least in America people who can afford it, can get just about any sort of treatment imaginable, and those who can't can turn to organizations set up to assist with payments or treatments.

 

[Alate_One]

Yet another example of Fox news' massive slant. The baby is DYING.

Although the couple has accepted their baby boy's inevitable death, they insisted that it occur peacefully at home and not by removing his breathing tube, which will cause him to choke since he can't swallow or breathe on his own. The parents asked for a tracheotomy, which would open up a direct airway through an incision in Joseph's trachea and make it possible to bring the baby home. But doctors refused to perform the procedure, citing serious risks of infection, pneumonia and other possible complications.

A Canadian Article, covering the story

FYI people are allowed to die all the time in the US. Insurance companies will tell you they're not paying for more treatment.

 

[Dena]

FYI people are allowed to die all the time in the US. Insurance companies will tell you they're not paying for more treatment.

Exactly...and then there are those who don't have insurance in the first place. The relationship between life and money is what is disgusting.

 

[Nick M]

Am I missing something?

Free Canadian socialized medicine.

 

[lucybelle]

Yet another example of Fox news' massive slant. The baby is DYING.
...

I don't see what Fox news has to do with anything. We're all dying.

The baby's condition may or may not be alterable. Obviously the parents have lost another child to similar conditions and they doctors fear the same outcome for this child. The decision made in Canada is understandable.

That doesn't make it right.

 

[Alate_One]

I don't see what Fox news has to do with anything. We're all dying.

Some more immediately than others. The point is actual doctors have determined his case is terminal in the relatively immediate term.

The baby's condition may or may not be alterable. Obviously the parents have lost another child to similar conditions and they doctors fear the same outcome for this child. The decision made in Canada is understandable.

That doesn't make it right.

In no country will private or public health care continue to support life when no chance of recovery is anticipated.

It also isn't right that people in the U.S. lose everything they have over medical costs. And that people that cannot afford treatment die early. No system is perfect, but overall Canada's is more "right" than the US's system.

 

[BabyChristian]

From what I read the boy's parents wanted to keep their son on a respirator but Canadian hospital where the boy was at said no. Then the Canadian court agreed with the doctors. Excuse but don't parents have the final say, not doctors? :bang:

Not where health care is free obviously.

 

[Sherman]

The decision to keep that boy on life support should be the decision of the parents. The state shouldn't take that away.

Valid reasons to keep a child on life support-Brain activity and response to touch and sound--ie the brain is still alive. That shows the person is alive, not just a corpse being preserved on a respirator. If there is brain death, then the person is no longer living. The spirit has already left the building. So these questions need to be answered first in order to justify taking that child off life support.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The parents know the baby is dying, that's not the point. The parents would like to avoid the baby dying unnecessarily too soon and a unnecessarily painful death. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

When you love somebody and they are dying you don't want the doctor scheduling the time, date, and way of death. Dying with dignity and in the most peaceful way possible seems like what a civil society would allow.

 

[bybee]

The parents know the baby is dying, that's not the point. The parents would like to avoid the baby dying unnecessarily too soon and a unnecessarily painful death. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

When you love somebody and they are dying you don't want the doctor scheduling the time, date, and way of death. Dying with dignity and in the most peaceful way possible seems like what a civil society would allow.

Agreed.

 

[Cracked]

The parents know the baby is dying, that's not the point. The parents would like to avoid the baby dying unnecessarily too soon and a unnecessarily painful death. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

When you love somebody and they are dying you don't want the doctor scheduling the time, date, and way of death. Dying with dignity and in the most peaceful way possible seems like what a civil society would allow.

Okay - so do they have the scratch? Seriously, that is what it comes down to, right? They can pay to take the baby somewhere else and have his life prolonged. Bootstraps baby! Seriously, you guys will turn anything into political garbage. A couple of posters have already shown while this whole thing is being used in a terribly misleading way.

This is a very sad situation, which some conservatives have taken it upon themselves to turn it into political capital. Why? Because they simply do not want to be forced to pay for anyone else's health care. They will use any tool they can to avoid having to pay.