CANADA: 1 year-old Joseph’s life is in danger from courts, hospital

Most of you know the situation of the baby in Canada, Joseph, whom the hospital seems determined to kill.

Read about this situation HERE.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to CANADA: 1 year-old Joseph’s life is in danger from courts, hospital

  1. Supertradmum says:

    This beautiful child is a victim of the utilitarian mind-set of public health officials and the new generation of doctors. However, this is not that new. Partly, the legalization of abortion and the use of contraception has led to a hatred of little, needy babies and children, with more domestic violence against children and horrible decisions like this one. This is the culling of those who are deemed not necessary to society.

    Way over twenty years ago, with my first child, I was living in England. The doctor wanted me to have an amniocentesis. I refuse, saying it was not necessary and the procedure was dangerous for the baby. Within minutes, I had FIVE doctors in my clinic room, yelling at me, that if I had a down syndrome baby, this child would be a “drain on the system” and “an unnecessary medical expense”. I stated clearly that such a child was a child and I would love him anyway, and walked out. I sobbed all the way home.

    If I had been much younger and not as tough, I may have caved in. The procedure could have started a miscarriage. That child has the IQ of a genius, is healthy, amiable, and is a holy young man. This sort of thing which is happening in Canada will happen here, as those who are deemed not worthy to live will die. This is what happens when a government, Canada’s and ours, separates the law from the Law of the Creator, natural law and the Ten Commandments. God bless those wonderful parents and somehow, save that baby. Pray he is baptized. This is a heart-rendering event which will happen as usual under our new “health care” bill.

  2. I am at a loss to understand how a tracheotomy can be considered too risky by the doctors of a hospital that appears to want to remove life support anyway….Well, I mean, I can understand how some of the doctors would consider it too risky if they are also not in agreement with the hospital, but given that the hospital appears to be struggling to be able to remove the life support, one should think this would somehow affect the assessment of the risk involved in a tracheotomy….

  3. Supertradmum says:

    Catholicof thule,

    It is against the warped philosophy, that this child is not worth the effort. It is not the riskiness, but the attitude.

  4. Tom says:

    Someone on the article’s com. box suggested that there may be someone waiting for Joseph’s organs. I do not think this is too far-fetched.

  5. Philangelus says:

    {Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader, have asked them to perform a tracheotomy which would enable him to breathe on his own, so that they could take him home. The doctors have refused, saying the procedure is too risky.}

    Risky to whom? If everything goes wrong, the child dies. If they don’t perform the procedure, the child dies.

    This is like the vet who refused to sedate my cat because she might die, so he euthanized her instead. But that was a CAT, not a human being!

    It boggles the mind that these doctors are so determined that this child die on THEIR terms. One of the only things I had as the mother of a dying baby was the consolation that everything we could control was allowed to us to control. The hospital, doctors and courts are not only causing the death of the child, but they’re tremendously complicating the grieving process for the baby’s family.

    Why do people with no compassion go into “caring” professions? Why didn’t these folks go into actuarial accounting if they wanted total control and unfeeling decision-making?

  6. Catholicofthule’s question was the first thing that occurred to me when I read the story. It doesn’t make sense. I think the bottom line is that they just want to put the child to death, and if it has anything to do with them, nothing will stand in their way.

  7. Ralph says:

    Can there be any doubt that Paul VI was proftic in Humanae Vitae?
    My God, have mercy on us all.

  8. Random Friar says:

    The attack against prenatal and neonatal children is horrific. I fear that God is just, and hope for His Mercy.

  9. EXCHIEF says:

    This decision has been made by the ‘CANADIAN HEALTHCARE ALLOCATION COMMITTEE”. Sound anything like a death panel to you? Sound anything like only the fit may live? Sound anything like where we are headed in this country?

  10. Jenny bag of donuts says:

    Let the parents take their baby home!

  11. irishgirl says:

    This is awful!
    I echo Philangelus’ comment: why do people with no compassion go into ‘caring’ professions?
    Poor little one….St. Joseph, pray for baby Joseph and for his parents.

  12. Gabriel Austin says:

    Here we go again. “The HOSPITAL … refuses”. “The COMMITTEE decided …”

    Why not be excruciatingly exact?

    The Hospital whose president is NNNNN. The Committee composed of Drs. NNNNN.

    It is not hospitals and committees that decide. It is people. Amartya Sen pointed out that a famine was ended in India in the early 1940s when a newspaper published the names of those impeding the distribution of food.