You boys that simp for Government Run Healthcare..... get on in here....

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
16,329
Location
Tulsa
Well there's a lot of blame to go around.... and that includes the American Public..... but at the end of the day.... the US.gov should not have a say in our healthcare.
This right here. And the lack of competition by/through insurance companies is criminal. Another result of a bunch of lobbyists buying our government officials.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
6,455
Reaction score
2,858
Location
Tulsa Metro
If the parents could have afforded to pay for her care then all of this would be moot. Reality is that the tax payer funded healthcare shouldn’t be burdened with paying for around the clock life support in cases like this. The parents no doubt loved their child, but it doesn’t change the fact that what they wanted wasn’t rational. It’s very unfortunate that this child was born with a terminal disease that caused brain damage and resulted the need for continual life support.

Even the Italians knew that there wasn’t much that could be done for the child. It wasn’t even about saving the child’s life for them, it was about the Italian government interjecting itself between the parents and the UK court’s decision in favor of the medical staff treating the child.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
33,328
Reaction score
47,035
Location
Tulsa
If the parents could have afforded to pay for her care then all of this would be moot. Reality is that the tax payer funded healthcare shouldn’t be burdened with paying for around the clock life support in cases like this. The parents no doubt loved their child, but it doesn’t change the fact that what they wanted wasn’t rational. It’s very unfortunate that this child was born with a terminal disease that caused brain damage and resulted the need for continual life support.

Even the Italians knew that there wasn’t much that could be done for the child. It wasn’t even about saving the child’s life for them, it was about the Italian government interjecting itself between the parents and the UK court’s decision in favor of the medical staff treating the child.

Why not? For every little girl like this, I'd wager there's a 1000+ obese people in their healthcare system getting all sorts of care up to ICU round the clock care. What about smokers? Drug addicts?

None of that matters, the government shouldn't be making decisions like this because be careful of what you wish for. Didn't we just go through Covid where the Dems started using treatments as a political tools?
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
6,455
Reaction score
2,858
Location
Tulsa Metro
Why not? For every little girl like this, I'd wager there's a 1000+ obese people in their healthcare system getting all sorts of care up to ICU round the clock care. What about smokers? Drug addicts?

None of that matters, the government shouldn't be making decisions like this because be careful of what you wish for. Didn't we just go through Covid where the Dems started using treatments as a political tools?

The difference would be that she had a terminal disease and it was against medical advice to continue providing life supporting care. Because the family didn’t want the hospital to discontinue care it was taken to a court. The court agreed with the opinion of the medical professionals. The government didn’t make the call the courts did.

The very same thing happens here all the time. Hospitals don’t have infinite resources. The medical teams will advise patients and families when continuing treatment is no longer viable or beneficial to the patient. You just don’t hear about every time it happens because rational thinking people aren’t taking the issue before the courts.

This happened to me when my father passed away. He suffered a heart attack and was resuscitated in the ER. The reality was that he went far too long without a beating heart and oxygen to his brain. But he was in an CICU for several days to undergo scans to see if there was any brain function and there was not. The medical team advised that we remove life supporting care and we followed that advice. If we had fought that advice and forced the hospital to keep on giving him life supporting care; it wouldn’t have changed a thing except to increase the medical bills and prevented the hospital from being able to care for another critically ill patient that might have had a better chance of survival.
 

okcBob

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
6,794
Reaction score
11,668
Location
okc
Sometimes people aren’t rational & can’t accept that the patient won’t survive. They are asked if they want to do what’s best for the patient or do what’s best for the family, & they still want everything done. Have even had family members demanding everything be done because the patient “lives with them & they need her/his SS check or they can’t pay the rent.” The ethics office gets a call after that confession.
 
Last edited:

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
33,328
Reaction score
47,035
Location
Tulsa
The difference would be that she had a terminal disease and it was against medical advice to continue providing life supporting care. Because the family didn’t want the hospital to discontinue care it was taken to a court. The court agreed with the opinion of the medical professionals. The government didn’t make the call the courts did.

The very same thing happens here all the time. Hospitals don’t have infinite resources. The medical teams will advise patients and families when continuing treatment is no longer viable or beneficial to the patient. You just don’t hear about every time it happens because rational thinking people aren’t taking the issue before the courts.

This happened to me when my father passed away. He suffered a heart attack and was resuscitated in the ER. The reality was that he went far too long without a beating heart and oxygen to his brain. But he was in an CICU for several days to undergo scans to see if there was any brain function and there was not. The medical team advised that we remove life supporting care and we followed that advice. If we had fought that advice and forced the hospital to keep on giving him life supporting care; it wouldn’t have changed a thing except to increase the medical bills and prevented the hospital from being able to care for another critically ill patient that might have had a better chance of survival.

The wife worked in the Neurotrauma ICU for quite some time so I'm aware, she used to deal with it on a daily basis to some degree. However 99% of the time, it's doctors, care providers, and family making the decision.

Again, care providers with family making those decisions.

Speaking locally, if the family in a case like yours would've wanted to pursue care, there wouldn't be any situation where they would take away from someone else, unless the hospital mandated it. St Francis, St Johns, and Hilcrest all have significant ICU capacity available.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
33,328
Reaction score
47,035
Location
Tulsa
Sometimes people aren’t rational & can’t accept that the patient won’t survive. They are asked if they want to do what’s best for the patient or do what’s best for the family, & they still want everything done. Have even had family members demanding everything be done because the patient “lives with them & they need her/his SS check or they can’t pay the rent.” The ethics office gets a call after that confession.

This is true. However..... the government shouldn't make decisions or have any control. It sets a dangerous precedent.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom