PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Health Care



Gerry Clinchy
12-10-2012, 06:25 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/335248/right-live-case-canada-supreme-court

This is a case before the Supreme Court of Canada ...




“Right to Live” Case Before Canada Supreme Court (http://www.retrievertraining.net/human-exceptionalism/335248/right-live-case-canada-supreme-court)
By Wesley J. Smith (http://www.retrievertraining.net/author/47936)

December 10, 2012 2:15 P.M. (http://www.retrievertraining.net/human-exceptionalism/335248/right-live-case-canada-supreme-court)
Comments (http://www.retrievertraining.net/human-exceptionalism/335248/right-live-case-canada-supreme-court#comments) 4







Print (http://www.retrievertraining.net/blogs/print/335248)
Text http://global.nationalreview.com/images/icon_text-less.jpg (javascript:ts('article_text',-1)) http://global.nationalreview.com/images/icon_text-more.jpg (javascript:ts('article_text',1))




Futile Care Theory, aka medical futility (http://www.cbc-network.org/2012/05/the-trouble-with-futile-care-theory/), is a bioethical theory under which doctors/ hospital bioethics committees are empowered to withdraw wanted life-sustaining treatment based on their perceptions of the patient’s quality of life and/or a cost-benefit analysis determining whether the money being spent is worth the price.

Now the Canadian Supreme Court is going to hear the case of stroke patient HassanRasouli (http://dailycallerdev.com/2012/05/11/futile-care-duty-to-die-may-be-coming-to-a-hospital-near-you), a 61-year-old man with severe cognitive impairments. Doctors want to stop life support, but his family says that as a devout Muslim, he would want the care. Litigation ensued.
Rasouli is not unconscious, but what is often described as “minimally conscious,” as described in the National Post: (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/02/hassan-rasouli-tests-show-toronto-man-has-low-level-of-consciousness/)

As he was asked in his native Farsi to imagine performing tasks like playing tennis, Mr. Rasouli’s brain seemed to respond on an MRI scan during some tests, but not on others, says a report from Dr. Adrian Owen, a leading neuroscientist. The examinations are far from conclusive, but indicate limited brain activity, not a fully functioning mind locked in a frozen body, the report said.
In other words, Rasouli is profoundly disabled. But does that mean doctors should be able to decide that his time has come to die? If the hospital and doctors seeking to impose futile care on Rasouli over his family’s objection prevail, that could be the result.
Allowing doctors to unilaterally refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment would institute a profound change in the fundamental purpose of medicine. From the Globe and Mail story about the case:

A legal intervener in the case, The Canadian Critical Care Society, maintains that doctors must have the power to discontinue any treatment that is futile or even harmful to a patient. Critical care treatment should only be given when it may alleviate an illness or provide some permanent benefit, it said in a written brief. “When there is no hope of either, critical care will only result in needless suffering.”
But who decides if suffering is “needless?” If a patient believes staying alive is worth the suffering, who are doctors and bioethicists to gainsay that decision? Indeed, if Rasouli loses the case, maintaining life when that is what the patient wants will no longer be a fundamental purpose of medicine. Lives will only be saved if doctors believe it is worth the effort.








One might consider that there is no such thing as provide some permanent benefit ... isn't all health care only of temporary benefit, just of varying time periods?

murral stark
12-10-2012, 08:25 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/335248/right-live-case-canada-supreme-court

This is a case before the Supreme Court of Canada ...



One might consider that there is no such thing as provide some permanent benefit ... isn't all health care only of temporary benefit, just of varying time periods?

Have we thought about whether our dogs want to live when we have them put down because they are suffering? The vet tells us it's the right thing to do and we make the painful decision. Just something to think about. I'd bet if our dogs could talk, they say "No, I don't mind the suffering, don't kill me."

Gerry Clinchy
12-10-2012, 08:47 PM
The difference is that our Constitution was written for the rights of humans. That said, there are some humans who might choose not to live ... but this case is about when the human chooses to live, but the doctors get to override that.

The ducks and geese you shoot might choose to live, if you asked their opinion :-)

charly_t
12-10-2012, 10:26 PM
Have we thought about whether our dogs want to live when we have them put down because they are suffering? The vet tells us it's the right thing to do and we make the painful decision. Just something to think about. I'd bet if our dogs could talk, they say "No, I don't mind the suffering, don't kill me."

If you get to hurting bad enough you will want to check out. Sometimes we have to decide for family or pets when to say "no more". Machines hooked up to keep someone alive is not "living". Judgement has to be used along with common sense. Watched my Mother die a little bit at a time while suffering extreme pain.
Have lost many pets over the years and I'm here to tell you that after watching a human family member die like that you will view letting go of a beloved dog ( pet of any kind ) in a very different way. Selfish of us to ask that of anyone human or animal. Been there, done that.