Baby Charlie has passed away

[downzy]

7 minutes ago, soon said:

Until the mid 1980's indigenous women and girls were forcibly sterilized for being indigenous.  

Those Drs still practice and they also trained and informed the younger Drs practicing today.  Therefore it should come as no surprise that Inmates receive woefully substandard health care.  They are criminalized for mental and physical health needs, addiction, and orientation and of course Indigenous and radicalized people are disproportionally represented there.  They are fed unhealthy, high sodium foods and live in traumatic environments were beatings and sexual assault or common.  They are denied heath care and/or given inhumane treatment.

Ashley Smiths Psychiatrists.

Kimberly Rogers GP.

Also, as a disabled person I know a million stories from others

For every good experience of care you've received, I've been brutalized.

Para Transpo was forced to install cameras because of the many incidents of rider abuse.

Women in the far North are forced to travel south to give birth and a companion is not covered so they have to come alone in many cases, many are Inuit and First Nations and due to stigma and settler racism, they are treated with further indignity and mistreatment as well as a lack of cultural sensitivity and inclusion.

OHIP fully acknowledges that wait lists for needed surgeries are too long.  This means too many are dying on wait lists.

Women Inmates are hand cuffed to bed while giving birth and there've been cases where babies were whisked away with no mother-baby time.

Only in the last decade has being Trans been removed from the DSM as a stand alone mental health condition.  And many listings that target queer and trans people remain as subcategories.

Dr Wong of Toronto was investigated by OPP and suspended from practicing for helping people of OW and ODSP access healthy diets, while acting with in the established framework of the program.  The existence of the Special Diet Allowance for Social Assistant recipients acknowledges that the monthly rates are insufficient to provide a basic, healthy diet.  So a DR utilized it to get people access to nutritious food.  Under the direction of Rob Ford in his previous Provincial role there was an investigation that turned up nothing and yet the College of Physicians none the less suspended Dr Wong for 6 months.  Extrapolate form there.

Counselling and psychotherapy are not covered by OHIP.  Poor people and the precariat who are traumatized receive no coverage for counselling.

Military vets with PTSD have frequently been prescribed drugs that themselves are known to cause suicide and psychosis, only recently introducing cannabis in place of those.

When a worker is injured the WSIB will only cover them for the % there are seemed disabled.  So, loose feeling in half your body, then receive 50% comp.

Injuries routinely are allotted 6 weeks of 45 minutes per week of physio by OHIP.  In many cases this is insufficient.

Which leads into the opiate epidemic.  The roots are in over prescribed opiates, leading to addiction and street use.  Instead of physio which isnt covered people who cant access private physio are prescribed opiates.  2400 died of opiate overdose in 2016.  Its trending up this year.  Plus additional opiate related deaths and illness in addition.  Drs are being squarely identified as a main source of the epidemic.

Many people do not have a GP.

 

 

 

 

I do agree that most, if not all, the examples you provided are objectionable and need more attention, but I'd be careful in saying that these transgressions are either the product of public delivery of health services, and that a private-market healthcare system would alleviate these issues.  Moreover, the wretched treatment of indigenous peoples in Canada is more reflective of indigenous policy as a whole, not simply a product of public health services.  

The problems you describe can also be found and in most cases amplified in the US.  You have outlined where OHIP falls short of providing full or the best care, but if we compare the situation in Ontario versus most, if not all, states south of the border we would see most of these issues exacerbated.  You bring up the opiate crises, but this issue isn't limited to Canada and isn't a product of socialized medicine.  With a far less robust public healthcare system, many areas in the US are facing an epidemic not rivalled in Ontario.  Also, on a side note, psychotherapy is covered by OHIP if a patient is referred by a GP.   

Moreover, while I don't discount the seriousness and breadth of these problems, I find it difficult to believe that these situations represent 50 percent of patients that receive care in the public system.  

[soon]

26 minutes ago, downzy said:

I do agree that most, if not all, the examples you provided are objectionable and need more attention, but I'd be careful in saying that these transgressions are either the product of public delivery of health services, and that a private-market healthcare system would alleviate these issues.  Moreover, the wretched treatment of indigenous peoples in Canada is more reflective of indigenous policy as a whole, not simply a product of public health services.  

The problems you describe can also be found and in most cases amplified in the US.  You have outlined where OHIP falls short of providing full or the best care, but if we compare the situation in Ontario versus most, if not all, states south of the border we would see most of these issues exacerbated.  You bring up the opiate crises, but this issue isn't limited to Canada and isn't a product of socialized medicine.  With a far less robust public healthcare system, many areas in the US are facing an epidemic not rivalled in Ontario.  Also, on a side note, psychotherapy is covered by OHIP if a patient is referred by a GP.   

Moreover, while I don't discount the seriousness and breadth of these problems, I find it difficult to believe that these situations represent 50 percent of patients that receive care in the public system.  

I never said anything in favour of Private Heath Care.  Ever.  Please don't straw man argument me.  

Also, I said for every good story there is a bad story.  You turned that into number of patients.  I trust that was an over site, but it is a major one.

I see Dr 2 times a week.  Someone else twice a year.  If I have lots of bad stories that shouldnt be suspect or disregarded as Im sure you'd agree.  And the person with such good health they only have the two stories shouldnt be surprised if it was all good.

Edited July 29, 2017 by soon

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Poor baby. I can't understand why babies are born only to suffer and die. He never got a chance at life.

My sympathies go out to his parents. Nothing is more painful than the loss of a child. The grief is unbearable. I wish them the strength to see them through this tough time.

RIP little Charlie. I do hope you are in a better place.

[Ace Nova]

8 hours ago, downzy said:

Does that include cases where the parents religion dictates that their child's health should rest solely on prayer and faith instead of life saving surgeries?

Apples and Oranges. 

That would be the same as me asking you why aren't you "pro choice" in this situation.  A woman has a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion but does not have the right to choose to keep her child on life support?

Smh.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Kasanova King

[Georgy Zhukov]

I wish people would show this much compassion for the already suffering refugee children from war torn nations. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

I wish people would show this much compassion for the already suffering refugee children from war torn nations. 

They are not westernised and white, and in some cases they are Muslim, so no chance of that.

[Georgy Zhukov]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They are not westernised and white, and in some cases they are Muslim, so no chance of that.

 The same was felt for the Jews in 1939

 

[AtariLegend]

1 hour ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 The same was felt for the Jews in 1939

 

In the 1920s and before as well.

A UK newspaper believed Jews where the world's greatest threat immediately following WW1. That wasn't even one of the tabloids. Alot can happen in less than a century.

People dismiss the past too easily.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 The same was felt for the Jews in 1939

 

A lot of Jews - from Germany, France and the low countries etc - were westernised though, and quite a few were baptised Christian and were rather surprised to find that they were 'Jewish' and therefore ''not German'' according to strict Nazi racial laws which delved back generations into your family tree to find evidence of untermenschen. Some German Jews even had the Iron Cross for bravery during the Great War (going back further, Frederick II's Prussia was one of the most tolerant states for Jews)!

It was following the invasion of Poland that the Nazis found themselves in possession of a multitude of orthodox Jews, thus adding an urgency to, and accelerating, the Final Solution.

Ironically westernised Jews despised orthodox Judaism as being a rather embarrassing reminder of [their own] cultural backwardness. Some of the worst antisemitism emanated from those quarters. It was also a, as it turns out hopelessly futile, gesture to ingratiate oneself with the National Socialists.

[The Real McCoy]

23 hours ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 

Do you even know what genetic condition Charlie had? It was a death sentence. There was nothing they could do. 

The parents should have the final say. No-one else.

[DieselDaisy]

The sooner they moved him to the States for this treatment, the better its chances of success. As it happens the judicial procrastination eroded what chance it did have, and then they recorded the negative verdict irrespective. Just to despise the parents even more they even had to go to court to determine the manner of his death. Truly disgusting.

[The Real McCoy]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The sooner they moved him to the States for this treatment, the better its chances of success. As it happens the judicial procrastination eroded what chance it did have, and then they recorded the negative verdict irrespective. Just to despise the parents even more they even had to go to court to determine the manner of his death. Truly disgusting.

That's the part that really sickens me. If they just allowed Charlie to come to the States for treatment, the little guy may have had a fighting chance. I'm just so saddened and disgusted over the whole situation.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, The Real McCoy said:

That's the part that really sickens me. If they just allowed Charlie to come to the States for treatment, the little guy may have had a fighting chance. I'm just so saddened and disgusted over the whole situation.

Yes, it needed to happen earlier. That was why the parents agreed to end his life in the end, as the doctor had said the treatment was impossible now with the passage of time.

They had raised the money (they didn't need the money in the end as doctors were willing to do it free!). They had the method of transportation which would not harm the child - presumably a plane with all medical facilities. The assurances of the doctor were that the treatment would not harm the child, and that there was a chance the treatment would have improved his standard of living. They surely had the right to pursue this? Nobody is denying that the treatment was 'experimental' and a bit of a long shot - they weren't - but in the end we'll never know now!

[Georgy Zhukov]

30 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

A lot of Jews - from Germany, France and the low countries etc - were westernised though, and quite a few were baptised Christian and were rather surprised to find that they were 'Jewish' and therefore ''not German'' according to strict Nazi racial laws which delved back generations into your family tree to find evidence of untermenschen. Some German Jews even had the Iron Cross for bravery during the Great War (going back further, Frederick II's Prussia was one of the most tolerant states for Jews)!

It was following the invasion of Poland that the Nazis found themselves in possession of a multitude of orthodox Jews, thus adding an urgency to, and accelerating, the Final Solution.

Ironically westernised Jews despised orthodox Judaism as being a rather embarrassing reminder of [their own] cultural backwardness. Some of the worst antisemitism emanated from those quarters. It was also a, as it turns out hopelessly futile, gesture to ingratiate oneself with the National Socialists.

 

A lot of Syrian refugees are white and not all of them are Christian, there are plenty of moderate Muslims fleeing a brutal regime or ISIS so I do not see your point.

12 minutes ago, The Real McCoy said:

That's the part that really sickens me. If they just allowed Charlie to come to the States for treatment, the little guy may have had a fighting chance. I'm just so saddened and disgusted over the whole situation.

 

No he wouldn't. He was already dead. 

[The Real McCoy]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yes, it needed to happen earlier. That was why the parents agreed to end his life in the end, as the doctor had said the treatment was impossible now with the passage of time.

They had raised the money (they didn't need the money in the end as doctors were willing to do it free!). They had the method of transportation which would not harm the child - presumably a plane with all medical facilities. The assurances of the doctor were that the treatment would not harm the child, and that there was a chance the treatment would have improved his standard of living. They surely had the right to pursue this? Nobody is denying that the treatment was 'experimental' and a bit of a long shot - they weren't - but in the end we'll never know now!

No reason why it had to end this way for Baby Charlie at all. The hospital essentially kidnapped him, played God and stripped his parents of their rights. It's sick, twisted, and demented.

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

No he wouldn't. He was already dead. 

That is simply not true.

[Georgy Zhukov]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is simply not true.

 

He was brain dead, he was dying, there was no saving him. He was already dead. There was nothing they could do about it. 

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 

He was brain dead, he was dying, there was no saving him. He was already dead. There was nothing they could do about it. 

You are missing the point though. We are discussing treating him earlier. Charlie Gard's condition was gradual and regressive; when he was first admitted to GOSH he was merely suffering from breathing difficulties. He didn't simply enter hospital completely brain damaged!

PS

Just to give you an idea of the chronology, Charlie Gard was admitted in October 2016 and litigation has been going on since February 2017 over the parents desire to take him to the United States to treat him with DNA generating nucleosides.

Edited July 30, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[AtariLegend]

2 hours ago, The Real McCoy said:

No reason why it had to end this way for Baby Charlie at all. The hospital essentially kidnapped him, played God and stripped his parents of their rights. It's sick, twisted, and demented.

I have no idea what you've been reading online, but if a baby has is born with an un-treatable fatal disease with brain damage can't see/hear or survive without a ventilator, it's no one's fault.

The "chance" that keeps getting refereed to here has never even went to clinical trial or was it designed to treat Charlie's specific condition. The American doctor that deals with the treatment, hadn't seen any of the records or examined him.

...And even if, just if it had worked... it still couldn't reverse brain damage. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by AtariLegend

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

I have no idea what you've been reading online, but if a baby has is born with an un-treatable fatal disease with brain damage can't see/hear or survive without a ventilator, it's no one's fault.

The "chance" that keeps getting refereed to here has never even went to clinical trial or was it designed to treat Charlie's specific condition. The American doctor that deals with the treatment, hadn't seen any of the records or examined him.

...And even if, just if it had worked... it still couldn't reverse brain damage. 

He wasn't admitted with brain damage or cognitive failure however. You are speaking bollocks as usual.

[soon]

4 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

 

The "chance" that keeps getting refereed to here has never even went to clinical trial or was it designed to treat Charlie's specific condition. The American doctor that deals with the treatment, hadn't seen any of the records or examined him.

...And even if, just if it had worked... it still couldn't reverse brain damage. 

So he'd be a live with his loving parents, but since he'd have brain damage you wouldn't want this for them?

[AtariLegend]

2 hours ago, soon said:

So he'd be a live with his loving parents, but since he'd have brain damage you wouldn't want this for them?

You do know what kind of brain damage we're talking about here?

I really think people are reading social media posts and politicized headlines from tabloids as opposed to knowing anything about what kind of state the child was actually in.

The attempts to point blame are sickening, obviously the right has got want it wanted out off this. 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

You do know what kind of brain damage we're talking about here?

I really think people are reading social media posts and politicized headlines from tabloids as opposed to knowing anything about what kind of state the child was actually in.

The attempts to point blame are sickening, obviously the right has got want it wanted out off this. 

Im not at all right wing.  Nor am I informed by tabloids.  You didnt answer my question.  Your post here is just embarrassing and desperate

[AtariLegend]

16 minutes ago, soon said:

Im not at all right wing.  Nor am I informed by tabloids.  You didnt answer my question.  Your post here is just embarrassing and desperate

The answer is no, a life where the child might recover to become a vegetable in the most unlikely/positive scenario is not something to get optimistic about.

Edited July 30, 2017 by AtariLegend

[soon]

58 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

The answer is no, a life where the child might recover to become a vegetable in the most unlikely/positive scenario is not something to get optimistic about.

In your opinion.  Which you want the State to force on another family and another life.

Your vote for eugenics regarding cognitive function is a vote against your own self interest, I can assure you.

Edited July 30, 2017 by soon
spelling