429
Imagine having to get a judge to signoff on any other medical procedure, and it really highlights the absurdity.
...this feels a lot like the death panels a certain sect was screeching about back in 2008/2009
Frame Canada: Wendell Potter spent decades scaring Americans. About Canada. He worked for the health insurance industry, and he knew that if Americans understood Canadian-style health care, they might.... like it. So he helped deploy an industry playbook for protecting the health insurance agency. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/925354134/frame-canada
Damn, a real world example of South Park's Blame Canada!
eh?
“They’re not even a real country anyway.”
/s
Slate says hello....from 2013.
Canada quite literally does have "Death Panels". Regardless of how you feel about the UHC debate that part wasn't made up.
Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act has been on the books for nearly two decades. Like similar laws in many Canadian provinces—and American states—it sets out the process for making treatment decisions when a patient cannot provide or withhold her consent—when she is in a coma and on life support, for example.
America has them too. The above is from the same Slate article you linked.
Maybe don't just pick and choose portions of an article that match your confirmation bias.
America has them too.
I never said they didn't but I will point that America's version pretty much just assigns guardianship and decision making authority to one guardian or another in the case of a dispute. The Ontario version can actually TAKE guardianship from someone and make decisions about care on their own authority.
Regardless of how it works in America the point stands. Canada's "Death Panels" were not a fabrication. The "Consent and Capacity Board" of Ontario exists.
I'd much prefer a panel if doctors deciding my fate rather than my mother or my father who may be blinded by their own emotions.
Even more if my family members were part of a sect like the Jehovah's witnesses, for whom not even blood transfusions are acceptable. How stupid do you have to be to leave a loved one to die just to follow the instructions given by illiterate people living 2000 years ago? This kind of decisions should be informed but should also have limits around them. Keeping religion outside if this realm should be a very clear one for instance
Wow at the gymnastics and hoop jumping of that article to try to apply a term that does not match the common fear mongering use of the word or even the situation. Classic clickbait headline.
You should listen to the podcast.
Wow at the gymnastics and hoop jumping of that article to try to apply a term that does not match the common fear mongering use of the word or even the situation.
Care to point out the "gymnastics and hoop jumping" in the article? Canada does in fact have Governmental bodies that can and will over ride the wishes of close family and / or guardians even when doing so will mean someone's death. In Ontario that body is called the " Consent and Capacity Board.". That isn't "fear mongering" it's fact and it definitely matches up with the commonly used idea behind the idiom "Death Panel".
I don't need to listen to a 24 minute podcast to learn something that the government of Ontario has already openly talked about.
Lol you want people to read your links while you ignore other people's links. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. The very definition of living in a self chosen echo chamber of clickbait headlines.
Because it's not a death panel when it's a corporation that has a financial incentive to deny you
"It's easier to fool a man than to convince him he'd been fooled."
Instead, I have to wait for the insurance company to sign off on every medical procedure. Not the same, but still garbage.
Imagine having to get a judge to signoff on any other medical procedure
Ehh...I think that's a little different in that they needed a judge to determine who had the right to make medical decisions for her. The judge themselves weren't making the call for what should be done, only if it was her husband or parents who had the right to make medical decisions.
This is more along the lines of my appendix is on the verge of bursting. I want it removed. My doctor recommends removal and is willing and able to do so. The govt says I don't think it's bad enough yet and if you do it now I will criminally charge you. Wait until it explodes and you are at risk for sepsis before I will allow you to undergo surgery, despite the fact I have zero medical experience.
Fair point, I hadn't thought of it in those terms.
Related, could you imagine having to ask a private, for profit, organization for permission? The same organization that would have to pay money out?
Good thing we avoided those death panels.
Judge Dredd
Judge, jury, and executioner
Texas judge grants permission for woman to access healthcare.
That's what really happened.
Getting the government to sign your permission slip before being allowed necessary medical care
Just small government things
I think it's more specific to specify what that healthcare actually is.
Yes, being specific is more specific. I assume you're implying that more specific = better. The point of the comenter you replied to is that the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary. You shouldn't need a judge to give your doctor permission to provide you with healthcare. It doesn't matter what kind it is.
the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary.
To you, maybe. But you don't get to deem what's necessary for everyone else.
You're arguing in bad faith when you try to hide your stance behind vagueness. Both sides do it, and I never take either of you seriously when you do.
Hide our stance? The original commenter summarized the article in a way that made their stance clear. They believe the procedure in the article is medical care. They don't have to state what procedure they're talking about because it's in the article.
Your accusation that they're trying to hide what the procedure is leads me to believe you don't agree that it is healthcare. So in the interest of having a productive discussion about the topic of this article I will make an argument and ask you what you think.
-
What is considered healthcare should be decided by medical professional consensus.
-
Your access to healthcare should not be dependent on a judges approval.
-
The procedure we are discussing detailed in the article is considered healthcare by medical professional consensus.
Conclusion. Access to the procedure we are discussing detailed in the article should not be dependent on a judges approval.
What do you think?
load more comments
(1 replies)
“There are no facts pled which demonstrate that Ms. Cox is at any more of a risk, let alone life-threatening, than the countless women who give birth every day with similar medical histories,” the state wrote
Wow. They really don't get it, do they?
No, they get it. And that is so much worse.
"We're being just as cruel to her as every other woman in Texas; why should she get special treatment!?"
Were this my wife and this bullshit caused her to die the only viable path I could see is personally watching myself squeeze the life out of every single one of these morally bankrupt shit stains. Such utter trash. I don't know why we haven't exiled these cultists from civil society.
You are the sort of person we need wearing the Punisher symbol. Not these wannabe cops.
I'd vote not-guilty for you if we were ever in court.
That decision is likely to be appealed by the state, which argued that Cox does not meet the criteria for a medical exception.
Great, hold it up in the appeals courts to get the stupid outcome you want regardless of whether you win the appeal, the State. This is the definition of abusing the judicial system.
Oh everything took too long and now you can't get an abortion? Tee hee.
I mean, it's in the article. This pregnancy, which will not survive, has a significant chance of destroying any chance that she can ever carry another pregnancy if allowed to come to term.
To preserve her ability to carry another healthy pregnancy to term, this one must be terminated.
Doctors do things every day to prevent serious harm later and this should not be a situation that demands a woman and her doctor to freaking BEG a judge for permission to be able to follow the medical recommendation.
It's Texas, they literally don't care about this poor woman and the crap situation their philosophy has put her in, in fact they don't even really care about the baby, despite their claims to the country, they just like having power to impose their oppressive worldview on everyone else. They couldn't give a flying rat about the consequences.
100 billion percent this
“The idea that Ms. Cox wants so desperately to be a parent and this law may have her lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said.
I can't decide if that's a clever choice of words, or a really poor choice of words.
Can I go to court and get their permission to jerk off since it's killing a couple trillion babies?
It’s always better to ask forgiveness than permission.
Don’t ask if you don’t want the answer.
They will tell you it’s a sin to jerk off and will probably try to pass legislation making that illegal, too.
Just rub one out and move on…
Somebody in Texas has common sense.
It's a big state. The law of large numbers ought to apply.
"Texas isn't a red state, it's a non-voting state, so it's a red state."
inb4 they jail the judge
That's a precedent! LET'S GOOOOOOOO
I wish. It's a temporary restraining order that only applies to Kate Cox.
Man, I can't take news seriously when using the Eternity app for Lemmy.
What the... Erm...
I love Boost. And Sync is great.
How that happened is beyond me. 😳
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
429 points (100.0% liked)
News
32959 readers
2502 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS