If you want governent HC this is what you risk getting..

[greg334]

As a nurse, you are not part of a family, there is a difference. I was part of a discussion for two of them discussions to end a life of a family member and one of them was where I had to make the decision. There is a big difference, and nurses are not the ones who have to deal with the aftermath unless it is their family.

The assistance I speak about it not about information but more about prompting people into making a decision on the staff's time, something I witnessed a lot of times. By no means should there be a lack of information and any restriction of consultation involved and in matters of terminal patients should not include doctors who have nothing to do with the care in the first place.

A lot of places treat people as cattle, I've seen a lot when I worked in offices and hospitals, a "got to get this over with" mentality which permeates health care. It seems that D.O.s are better at respecting patients more than M.D.s but nevertheless a doctor's practice and hospitals both do not make money on small patient flows. They both are dependent on a minimal quantity of patients going through the office or wards to make profits. The more commercial the practice or hospital, the more it happens - some of the not for profit (like Sisters of Mercy) seem to be a slower pace which means no "in and out" for the doctor.

Wills being contested is not in any way an indicator about this issue, it is about greed and selfishness much of the time and other times is it about control. One may feel left out or one may feel they deserve over others but the difference is a big one when you have to make a decision which will end the life of a loved one - the emotion is quite different.

 

[pjjjjj]

... I was part of a discussion for two of them discussions to end a life of a family member ...

This thread is not about 'ending a life', it is about a failure to bring someone back to life. We do not kill people over here just because our healthcare is available to all. We do pay for said healthcare, it is not free. Doctors are held to a code of ethics, just as they are over your way, they run their own businesses, they have their own patients. Americans have the same dilemmas regarding DNRs and family members, it is not related to who is paying how much for what.

Actually, forgive me if I'm mistaken, because I'm not entirely clear on how the money thing works over there.. but in this same situation, if some daughter over there was also not ready to accept that her beloved father could not sustain his life any longer and she therefore ordered that every measure be taken to repeatedly bring dad back every time he kicked the bucket, and yet she didn't have enough funds or insurance to cover that.... what would happen over there? Death for dad because not enough money to pay? Or a future bankruptcy for the daughter?

It still boils down to one thing, the government has NO valid role in end of life or medical treatment decisions. That should ONLY be between the patient, their family and the doctors. PERIOD.

The thing about this is... this WAS between the patient, family and doctors. There was no mysterious 'government', thief of freedoms and rights, standing there saying... 'umm hellooooo, we've spent enough on this man already, he is old, he has no legs, and in our opinion his life is not worth living any longer, so be done with him, end his life now, stab him in the heart and do it right the first time to save money'.

An American doctor could just as easily have made the same decision, we don't know the details. As was stated, this article is written by a reporter solely based on the statements of the completely emotionally involved daughter. The media loves reaction and readership. We need to see the facts. All of them. Do you remember that little freedom and rights thing about proving guilt before hanging? This is the stuff that makes me confused alot when reading many posts on here... contradictions.. you want it both ways, or at least the way that suits *you* at the time.

Another contradiction I see is that many EOers seem to be religious and have great belief, trust, and faith in God, etc. And yet if a person cannot sustain his life with what is provided by God and his own body, even after undergoing a risky, massive surgical procedure after living a wonderfully long life of 88 years (we should all be so fortunate eh?) to try to save his life.. you want the mechanical intervention.. to h*ll with the faith and religion that perhaps it is just simply time to go.

Just because we may have the technology to allow people's bodies to stay alive for a few more minutes, (or even for a few more years while their brain is dead), does not mean that we should provide the technology for this at will, at least in the best interests of the patient. If the patient remains alive on his own accord in such a case, that is one thing. Keeping him alive because we can, is another. And even then, in America, is this option available only to those who can afford such an option? If so, is this not saying that one person's life (the one with the money) is more valuable than another person's life?

This issue isn't about government. It is about ethics and morals and religion and fear and beliefs and grief and guilt and denial and a whole slew of other things and everyone has their opinion... and it ain't about to be resolved on the forums of EO.

Another little 'aside' that I find confusing is that the daughter's lawsuit is for one million dollars? That's a drop in the bucket for what she should be able to sue for if in fact she had a case at all.

 

[Pilgrim]

An American doctor could just as easily have made the same decision, we don't know the details

The crux of the matter is that it's not the doctor's decision to make - he's a consultant. The patient - if he's lucid - along with the family should have the right to say thumbs up if they're willing to press on. They also should have the right to insist on the conditions of a living will and DNR instructions if condtions warrent.

The problem with ObamaCare is that nobody really knows what's in the fine print or how it will be interpreted. If the it allows for rationing of care once the laws of unintended consequences start to take effect, then we'll see the death panels start to take form along with a lot of other undesirable mandates the politicians told us weren't in the bill. However, all this is probably moot because this whole mess will likely be repealed before any of it takes effect.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't have a clue what happened in this case. The fact of the overall issue is that doctors, or the government, have NO legitimate business making decisions like this. All I want is the facts, I will decide what is best. That is how it was handled when my mother died. The doctors gave us the facts, we decided what course to take. That was it. NO ONE will EVER make or override a life and death decision that is mine to make. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Ontario Drs. are businessmen yes...But their paycheck comes from the government ..taxpayer money...

yes 1 million$ is low...that makes me real curious...

 

[greg334]

Pjjjj, your question is my point about the need to keep nurses and doctors out of the decision, the money is the motivator to move things along and many of the times the staff is scared or just don't care and follow the administrators instructions.

Compassion is costly at some hospitals, for example you have a patient in the waiting area who is having seizures and the staff does not respond because the patient does not have insurance or not properly checked because they did not go through the process. The hospital management says "regardless wait until the process is complete" and the staff's hands seemed to be tied. The patient dies but the hospital does not care because they are insured. The staff gets into this mode that they would rather follow hospital procedures than helping the patient all because of money. By the way, that really happened.

A lot of the time the insurance company won't object, if the patient doesn't have the money, then it is normally billed to them - there are a number of legal issues over pushing patients out the door that scream LAWYER.

 

[cheri1122]

I totally see Pjjjjjjj's point: those who insist that doctors mustn't "play God" in deciding to allow someone to die, when their body has clearly had enough, are the same folks who demand that doctors intervene to save their loved ones under the same scenario.
We need to pick one: either doctors can 'play God' by saving a life, or they should 'let nature take it's course' - we can't have it both ways.

Greg: when you say 'the family' should be solely responsible for the decision, you seem to believe that agreement among family members will be reached, in some kind of timely fashion. Trust me, it very often isn't. [Hence the mention of contesting wills]. Like a jury, just one holdout can drag the process out beyond reason, certainly beyond the point where the decision must be made. Then what?
I'm seriously hoping it never has to be decided between my siblings & myself, because if the five of us agree, it would be the first time. we are all adults who want to do the right thing, but disagree on what it is. Same old story, no good ending.

 

[layoutshooter]

There is NOT always agreement in families. That is NO reason for doctors to act on their own.

When doctors are paid, and therefor work, for the government there is massive chances for a "conflict of interest". They will, quite often, do the biding of the "boss". If the boss says, save money, they will. No matter what the cost. I seen it all the time when I was in England. The patient is NOT their primary concern. It is almost impossible to sue them and they do as the government bids. NO one had EVER try that with me. I promise that they will regret it.

The doctors, nurses and by NO MEANS the government has ANY reason to interfere with what is the RIGHT of the patient and their loved ones.

 

[chefdennis]

There is not always agreement within the families and that is why it is important to have YOUR and YOUR closest family member (spouse or the one that you have designated) wishes in writhing long before the need arises...

Drs. need only to provide factual information and offer advise, but in no way will they or anyone else including a government agent make any decisions for me or my family members.

 

[greg334]

Greg: when you say 'the family' should be solely responsible for the decision, you seem to believe that agreement among family members will be reached, in some kind of timely fashion. Trust me, it very often isn't. [Hence the mention of contesting wills]. Like a jury, just one holdout can drag the process out beyond reason, certainly beyond the point where the decision must be made. Then what?
I'm seriously hoping it never has to be decided between my siblings & myself, because if the five of us agree, it would be the first time. we are all adults who want to do the right thing, but disagree on what it is. Same old story, no good ending.

I understand. I hope you understand my point.

 

[cheri1122]

All I'm hearing from you guys is "No doctor has the right to make decisions for me or mine, period."
But what should the doctor do, when the family is too busy yelling, crying, refusing to talk to the others, and/or threatening [and too often, going through with it] physical violence, and the disagreement continues for days, going in circles, with no resolution in sight?
I've seen it happen a hundred times: families who cannot come to agreement on 'what Mom would have wanted', while the doctors cannot do anything until an agreement is reached, lest they get sued.
So what should be done?
PS In a perfect world, everyone would have their wishes spelled out clearly, in advance - but that's never gonna happen. And even when it is clearly stated, [as in a will], it's often contested by a family member!

 

[layoutshooter]

All I'm hearing from you guys is "No doctor has the right to make decisions for me or mine, period."
But what should the doctor do, when the family is too busy yelling, crying, refusing to talk to the others, and/or threatening [and too often, going through with it] physical violence, and the disagreement continues for days, going in circles, with no resolution in sight?
I've seen it happen a hundred times: families who cannot come to agreement on 'what Mom would have wanted', while the doctors cannot do anything until an agreement is reached, lest they get sued.
So what should be done?
PS In a perfect world, everyone would have their wishes spelled out clearly, in advance - but that's never gonna happen. And even when it is clearly stated, [as in a will], it's often contested by a family member!

The doctor can go get a cup of coffee for all I care. NO ONE will interfere. It does not matter if it happens a MILLION times. I don't care if it is NOT a perfect world, letting government controlled doctors and health care systems take over and NO ONES wishes will matter.

NO arrogant politician or government controlled doctor will EVER interfere in my family. If they try, they WILL out what being interfered with is REALLY like!! I WILL stop the interference by what ever means it takes. That is how it is.

 

[greg334]

Stay out of it.

The only exception I can say that is one that is needed to be made within any time frame is the one where an organ is needed to save another's life. If the organ can be harvested after death with time to spare, then that's not an exception.

 

[chefdennis]

Cheri wrote:

PS In a perfect world, everyone would have their wishes spelled out clearly, in advance - but that's never gonna happen. And even when it is clearly stated, [as in a will], it's often contested by a family member!

My wife and oldest kids all have our wishes in writing signed and notorized. My oldest son just had his 1st son and before I left the hospital i told him that an appointment would be made with my lawyer (his also) asap (i'll call tues) for him to make any changes in his wishes now that he is a dad..... (this thread in part prompted me to bring it up, so thank you all)

While no one can guarantee infighting when the time arises, with it clearly written out signed and notorized witnessed by a lawyer, everyone knows the persons wishes and I for one do not anticapate any problems...and again, no doctor or gov agent or anyone else will make those decisons on my or my families behalf.....

As for what the drs should do, as i said, offer factual information and advise then get out of the any decision making position.....

 

[cheri1122]

The doctor can go get a cup of coffee for all I care. NO ONE will interfere. It does not matter if it happens a MILLION times. I don't care if it is NOT a perfect world, letting government controlled doctors and health care systems take over and NO ONES wishes will matter.

NO arrogant politician or government controlled doctor will EVER interfere in my family. If they try, they WILL out what being interfered with is REALLY like!! I WILL stop the interference by what ever means it takes. That is how it is.

I'm sure the bluster makes you feel better, [since you resort to it so often], but it does absolutely nothing to address the issue, much less answer my question.
I repeat: in the absence of a Living Will, or any agreement among the family, what should the doctor actually do? Let nature take it's course [let the patient die], or play God [intervene to save them], when death [of natural causes] is imminent?

 

[layoutshooter]

I'm sure the bluster makes you feel better, [since you resort to it so often], but it does absolutely nothing to address the issue, much less answer my question.
I repeat: in the absence of a Living Will, or any agreement among the family, what should the doctor actually do? Let nature take it's course [let the patient die], or play God [intervene to save them], when death [of natural causes] is imminent?

Not bluster, just how it is. We ALL have living wills. Even when my mother died without one it was solved in minutes of being given the facts of the situation. I don't give a flip what other problems others have. That has NO bearing on allowing doctors or politicians to control the lives of others. I have answered your question, I WILL do what ever it takes to maintain control when MY family is involved. PERIOD.

I have NO issue. I have the problem solved unless the government or doctor gets in the way. If they get in the way, they will be moved.

I have had to make that choice for a patient when I was an EMT. I had limited resources available, two EMT's, on BLS ambulance and a few firefighters to help.

I had two potential patients. One was thrown out of the care, she was moving. The other was in the care, eyes open, pupils fixed. No blinking with eyes full of dirt and glass. A DEEP CUT on his neck, about half way through. NO BLEEDING. NO PULSE. NO BREATHING. The term that dictated my response was known as "the most salvageable patient". I did NOT treat the man in the car, called it in as "apparent death" and treated the live one.

That took about 30 seconds. IF there had been ONE patient I would have treated until I dropped, UNLESS I was told NOT TOO by family, that happened before in the past as well. Not that hard.

 

[cheri1122]

Not bluster, just how it is. We ALL have living wills. Even when my mother died without one it was solved in minutes of being given the facts of the situation. I don't give a flip what other problems others have. That has NO bearing on allowing doctors or politicians to control the lives of others. I have answered your question, I WILL do what ever it takes to maintain control when MY family is involved. PERIOD.
Ok, but don't call me for bail money....[My sister was arrested for objecting rather vigorously to a doctor's proposed treatment of her son.]

I have NO issue. I have the problem solved unless the government or doctor gets in the way. If they get in the way, they will be moved.

I have had to make that choice for a patient when I was an EMT. I had limited resources available, two EMT's, on BLS ambulance and a few firefighters to help.

I had two potential patients. One was thrown out of the care, she was moving. The other was in the care, eyes open, pupils fixed. No blinking with eyes full of dirt and glass. A DEEP CUT on his neck, about half way through. NO BLEEDING. NO PULSE. NO BREATHING. The term that dictated my response was known as "the most salvageable patient". I did NOT treat the man in the car, called it in as "apparent death" and treated the live one.

That took about 30 seconds. IF there had been ONE patient I would have treated until I dropped, UNLESS I was told NOT TOO by family, that happened before in the past as well. Not that hard.

Here's my point: people [including you] keep referring to "the family" as if it were a single entity - it's not.
It's often a diverse group [or just two people, even] of folks who cannot agree, and when decisions must be made without delay, THEN WHAT?
And as Pjjjjj asked, when they do agree, and want everything done to keep their loved one alive, when said loved one is a brain dead vegetable who will require around the clock skilled nursing care for however many years technology can keep the heart beating, and said family has zero insurance or money to pay for the care, THEN WHAT?
I think 'letting the family decide' is a simplistic response, and just doesn't work in real life.

 

[layoutshooter]

Here's my point: people [including you] keep referring to "the family" as if it were a single entity - it's not.
It's often a diverse group [or just two people, even] of folks who cannot agree, and when decisions must be made without delay, THEN WHAT?
And as Pjjjjj asked, when they do agree, and want everything done to keep their loved one alive, when said loved one is a brain dead vegetable who will require around the clock skilled nursing care for however many years technology can keep the heart beating, and said family has zero insurance or money to pay for the care, THEN WHAT?
I think 'letting the family decide' is a simplistic response, and just doesn't work in real life.

So, you believe that a power hungry corrupt government and the doctor employed by them could do a BETTER job? How is that possible? MONEY and CONTROL will decide treatment or non-treatment. Just as in England. It is NOT pretty there. FAR worse than here.

Again, something you don't seem to understand, no matter what laws are passed, no matter what rules are in place, NO government nor their employee will EVER take away what is only mine to decide. I will resist with every means that I have available to me. There is NOTHING you or anyone can do to change that.

ANYONE or ANY government that can just kill unborn babies for NO valid MEDICAL reason will have NO problems killing old people for no other reason than to save a few bucks. They will also kill to insure their power. It has happened all through out history and is going to happen here if we do not stop them.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Lets just euthanize anyone over say 90...they just drag from the system anyhow...

 

[layoutshooter]

Lets just euthanize anyone over say 90...they just drag from the system anyhow...

More likely by 75 or 60 if they are veterans.