Whatever one thought of the Teri Schiavo debacle, there were two facets of that case that American patients should take comfort in:
- That there was a real and legitimate debate about what Mrs. Schiavo’s real wishes would have been, with different sets of loved ones presenting the courts with differing evidence that supported differing conclusions and
- that, if it could be determined definitively what those intentions were, it would have made a difference.
Our neighbors to the north are currently engaged in a controversy of their own that papers are calling “the Canadian Schiavo case,” but there are some stark differences that illustrate some of the unforseen dangers of the single-payer health care system. There, despite the fact that the family of Salvation Army Grace General Hospital patient Samuel Golubchuk are united in wanting to keep their father alive, and despite the fact that his being a strictly observant Orthodox Jew would seem to leave little question as to what his thoughts on the matter would be:
Golubchuk’s doctors informed his children that their 84-year-old father is “in the process of dying” and that they intended to hasten the process by removing his ventilation, and if that proved insufficient to kill him quickly, to also remove his feeding tube. In the event that the patient showed discomfort during these procedures, the chief of the hospital’s ICU unit stated in his affidavit that he would administer morphine.
The difference, of course, is that in Canada, the state is both payor and provider of all health care, and even if Golubchuk’s family had the means to pay for their father’s continued hospitalization, it would be illegal for them to do so. When opponents of socialized medicine complain of “rationing,” this is specifically what they mean — he who pays the piper calls the tune, and once all health care costs become public, so too, do all health care decisions:
the director of the ICU informed Golubchuk’s children that neither their father’s wishes nor their own are relevant, and he would do whatever he decided was appropriate. Bill Olson, counsel for the ICU director, told the Canadian Broadcasting Company that physicians have the sole right to make decisions about treatment — even if it goes against a patient’s religious beliefs — and that “there is no right to a continuation of treatment.”
Comments Off
Filed under: Behind Every Law..., Consumerism Rulez, Profiles in Governance
While it would probably be inaccurate to say that 
positive word will be said of FDR and his policies. But, as I sit at my office (and might I add I’m pretty sure I’m still drunk from last night) I must give credit where it’s due: the left’s favorite poster-child (in the Jerry’s Kids sense) 