How horrible.

[velvetpage]

I mourn this woman, younger than I am. I see in this one case the perfect reason why socialized health care is essential to a reasonable and civilized society. This could not have happened in a place where medicine wasn't governed directly by money.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa051214_lj_african.bb0e76d.html

Comments

[winters-edge.livejournal.com]

Baylor is a university hospital, and therefore, they don't refuse care to anyone, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. From what I read, I got the impression that the doctors weren't saying that they wanted more money; they were saying the patient had reached a point where her body was shutting down and the respirator was prolonging her life artificially.

In many ways, our university hospitals are like your socialized care system, as they not only accept patients without worrying about insurance or income, but allow private organizations or individuals to step in and pay for care once the pre-determined medical care guidelines have been exceeded or if there's no money in the individual's family for experimental treatments. That's why organizations like the Shriners exist.

If this had been about money with Baylor, they wouldn't have put her on the respirator at all, and they would have issued a bill saying "we can't continue to provide care without payment." What they did was use a law that allows the doctors to state that the patient's medical condition has deteriorated to the point where they felt it was inappropriate to keep her on the respirator. This is a woman who had been ill a long time, and I am not saying at all that I don't feel horrible for families in these situations. There was a point at which, however, the doctors told the patient's family she wasn't going to get better. At that point, arrangements to have her mother come over should have begun, not upon receipt of the letter from Baylor.

The doctors and residents at universities like Baylor tend to fight tooth and nail for their patients. They are paid less than other physicians, and work much longer hours. If they felt the need to use this law, she was in very dire straights. Additionally, Dallas-FW's not as metro-minded as you'd think. In order to get the approval to do this, chances are they went through some serious legal circles and even met with local representatives, because the religious conservatives there can be a force to reckon with in situations like these.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

...the patient's medical condition has deteriorated to the point where they felt it was inappropriate to keep her on the respirator.

Are doctors the ones who decide to stop treatment when a patient is conscious and asking for that treatment to continue? Should a treatment that is sustaining someone's life be withdrawn simply because the person isn't going to get better? In that case, where is the line drawn, in terms of life expectancy?

If she was going to live another year, conscious and alert on the respirator, would that make it wrong to take her off now? And if that would be wrong, then why is it acceptable to to take her off the respirator days before she died?

A conscious patient being taken off a respirator is euthanasia at the very least, IMO, regardless of their prognosis.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

If they were fighting for her tooth and nail, why couldn't they wait to either let nature take its course, or for her mother to get there? That's what would have happened in Canada.

I can't help but feel something went badly wrong when she was not allowed her dying wish. If she was so close to death anyway, a few more days wouldn't have been a big deal and the hospital might have saved itself a lot of bad press.