Sad story.

You'd think they would have sent him to hospice care, instead of just sending him home to die.

In a situation such as this, part of the care the hospital is providing, is to the boy's family. Seems like the hospital, let them down.

.

You'd think they would have sent him to hospice care, instead of just sending him home to die.

It was Texas.

nuff said?

At least we don't have rationing like those single payer countries.

Rethuglicans claim under "Obamacare" we would face death panels when the truth is they are in place in our current system which provides the most expensive care on the planet with ordinary outcomes. Rethuglicans are prolific liars. In this case paid to lie by the Health Insurance companies raping everyone. Notice also that they pretended to be morally outraged over the Terry Shiavo case.

#4 | Posted by nutcase at 2012-01-12 05:07 PM | Reply

Whether it's today or the future under Obamacare or any other system, you'll have the same thing happen. It's because our healthcare system has become too expensive and will be no better under any system.

Should have gone to a no profit hospital.

Under Obamacare The Child Would Be Healed.
Happy Now, Reich-Wingers?

Be Well.

v#4 | Posted by nutcase at 2012-01-12 05:07 PM | Reply

By the way, in all probability, the right decision was made. If hospice or home health care was delivered at home, this young man received appropriate care.

This is starting to look like Obama care! The imposition of value in the equation will cause this and so much more future pain!

There should be in place a direction, NATION-WIDE, to help handle / support these types of cases. This is exactly what needs supported from the Fed level by allowing freer access to Medical Savings Accounts! If the family shows an inability to fully fund these charges - they shoud be aided by grants OR TAX deductions / write offs to defray some of the excessive costs charged to the family.

This could be done by over-view of filed (and pending) tax statements /returns showing medical expense amounts, bills (paid and otherwise), and include direct testimony of attending physician(s) presenting schedules of treatment and diagnosis.

Take SOME of the pressure off the truly wanting and deserving in society!

You'd think they would have sent him to hospice care, instead of just sending him home to die

#1 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2012-01-12 04:51 PM | Reply

He like most terminally ill patients receive hospice care at home. There are many different levels of care.

By the way, in all probability, the right decision was made. If hospice or home health care was delivered at home, this young man received appropriate care.

#8 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-12 05:31 PM

You didn't read the article, or you didn't read it carefully.

It says:

Jordan Allen, 14, who was transferred to another facility five days before Texas Children's early July deadline, then in late August was discharged to the care of his parents, died at home Monday.

He was sent home with no care at all. That's just wrong.

Jordan Allen, 14, who was transferred to another facility five days before Texas Children's early July deadline, then in late August was discharged to the care of his parents, died at home Monday.

He was sent home with no care at all. That's just wrong.

#11 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2012-01-12 05:39 PM | Reply |

You can't tell from the article. If he was discharged to the care of his parents doesn't mean he didn't receive some form of hospice care at home. There is no way of knowing the exact circumstances. I read the article.

then in late August was discharged to the care of his parents, died at home Monday.

#11 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2012-01-12 05:39 PM | Reply

Roy, people are always "discharged" to the care of the folks responsible for that person legally. It doesn't mean he didn't receive hospice care.

You can't tell from the article. If he was discharged to the care of his parents doesn't mean he didn't receive some form of hospice care at home. There is no way of knowing the exact circumstances. I read the article.

#12 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-12 05:44 PM

You can read into it what you want, but it doesn't say that. It clearly states

'in late August was discharged to the care of his parents'

It doesn't even mention hospice care. I base my comments on the information in the article.

.

You can read into it what you want, but it doesn't say that. It clearly states

'in late August was discharged to the care of his parents'

It doesn't even mention hospice care. I base my comments on the information in the article.

.

#14 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2012-01-12 05:52 PM | Reply |

So, if it doesn't say the kid was sent home with a urinal and/or a bedpan, does it mean the kid wasn't sent home with a urinal and/or bedpan? Nothing like being a "literalist".

A rumor I heard that I started said that they couldn't keep him because all the beds were needed for the illegals.

So, if it doesn't say the kid was sent home with a urinal and/or a bedpan, does it mean the kid wasn't sent home with a urinal and/or bedpan? Nothing like being a "literalist".

#15 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-12 06:03 PM

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

Anything else is supposition and speculation.

.

Anything else is supposition and speculation.

Not only that, it's anyone's guess.

mat,

You're quite right the central problem with our national budget is the ridiculous cost of healthcare. Private for profit insurance companies are unnecessary.

I have no problem with home care, hospice are, or assisted suicide in these instances.

I just can't stand the endless bullshit.

I just can't stand the endless bullshit.

#19 | Posted by nutcase at 2012-01-12 06:50 PM | Reply

Agree, we'll see more of these situations and decisions no matter who controls healthcare. It's UNAVOIDABLE. However, it's not improper. When someone is terminal it makes no sense having them sit in a high priced hospital when they can receive the same care at home. I've watched it many times and it's the proper and humane thing to do. In fact, the many people I've been involved with want to die at home in familiar surroundings where they have loving family members care for them along with hospice. The greatest importance is to make these folks comfortable without suffering.

They have to maximize profit per bed. I understand. The corporation is responsible to its shareholders.

If the parents didn't buy shares and attend the meetings, make their wishes clear, and win the right votes to install the CEO of their choice then that's too bad.

Since they're just customers, they can choose to take their next child with brain cancer to another health care provider. That, my friends, is how consumer power works.

The imposition of value in the equation will cause this and so much more future pain!

Dogen-private insurance companies make these decisions all the time. Private corporations like Ford make them too-see the history of the Pinto's gas tank.

Trying to track what home care he got is tough:

"BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama will provide home health-care assistance to Jordan eight hours a day for two weeks, after which his parents will take care of all his needs. That includes nourishment through a feeding tube." August.

Whenever a natural monopoly is privatized costs go through the roof. In this country insurance companies control business health care regionally in a nearly monopolistic mnner. Hospitals and more so Doctors enjoy similar conditions.

In Florida Democrats starve those in a vegetative state.

In Florida Democrats starve those in a vegetative state.

IIRC it was her wishes they were following.

Try again.

In Florida Democrats starve those in a vegetative state.

How did the Dems do that exactly?

That *was* a shitty way to die.

In fact agreeing on that particular point was one of the few brief shiny moments of concensus we've had around here even if the rest of the Shiavo debate turned into a bit of a screaming match.

And at least it was an end to a mockery of a life that the GOP swore up and down was ready to stand up and start dancing any minute.

Shameful days for the GOP, indeed.

Speaking of which...

In Texas they take people off of life support even if the family don't want it.

And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.

As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. . . .

"Texas law allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree."

In Florida Democrats starve those in a vegetative state.

If that were the case knuckle head, Florida would have no Democrate. Kinda like a Jim Jones thing.

Sometimes, people die, no matter how much money you throw at it.

There is no compelling reason to keep individuals "alive" when EEGs and other medical tests verify a comatose and non-functioning state that is irreversible. You may define the decisions to stop supportive care as "death panels" or whatever one desires but these decisions will become the mainstream in the future regardless of the type of insurance system (private versus public), regardless of the nimrod in the WH (Obama or Romney), and regardless of whether congress is controlled by the demorats/rethugs. It's a fact of "life" that we might as well get used to.

Party of life, indeed.

Be Well.

#26 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-13 12:44 AM | Reply

And deadpotato, you're quite appropriately a partisan hypocritical maroooon---thank goodness you live across the border since we have enough of your kin living on our side.

Life is for the living.

Final Word Thom

#26 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-13 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wasn't your argument for abortion that if the individual is not independently viable... it is justified to kill them, let alone let them die on their own?

Consistent much? Now I think we should attempt to preserve life in every opportunity possible where an individual has not been proven without a reasonable doubt to have committed a severely heinous crime.

Life is for the living.

Final Word Thom

#31 | Posted by fwthom at 2012-01-13 09:35 AM | Reply

Deadpotato and other frequently evil lefties should be prostrate on their knees worshiping the Frequently Wise Thom.

the libs killed this kid

What? Why didn't Rick Perry summon an emergency state legislative session to draft laws to keep this kid on life support like Brother Jeb did in FLA?

In Florida Democrats starve those in a vegetative state.

#24 | Posted by KBM at 2012-01-13 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag:Very, very hungry in Florida.