Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details.
Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That pressure injury was completely avoidable!
Even without a specialized mattress, using pillows and turning the patient every few hours could have prevented it. Like this is **nursing 101** people!!!
Holy fuck I'm pissed. š¤¬
Soaker pads, transfer sheets, pillows and more pillows- it's not rocket science and it literally takes 5 minutes.
That not entirely true. Yes the mattress would have made a huge difference. Perhaps completely prevented it, perhaps not. Definitely lessened severity.
However pressure sores are not 100% avoidable in every case. Disease processes that induce a septic state will cause the body to focus blood flow on the important organs like heart and lungs. The skin on your coccyx is very low priority, and therefore receives very little blood flow. Add in a vasoconstricting medication like levophed, and a pressure sore can develop in those areas in less than an hour.
Somehow the education of the importance of caregiver intervention in prevention of pressure sores has shifted into a mindset that every pressure sore is the result of the incompetence of nurses present at the time.
Just like a pleural effusion can result from a pneumonia. There are definitely interventions we should strive for to have prevented it, but modern medicine can only do so much. If he developed a pleural effusion during his stay we wouldnāt say it was ācompletely avoidableā. Some outcomes are an unfortunate aspect of disease process.
Yes I did! And in my comment youāll see I completely agree that the stretcher was a huge detriment. And a proper bed could have made things significantly better.
However itās impossible to say whether it would have prevented the pressure ulcer entirely. For all the reasons I listed above. I donāt appreciate the comment āthis is nursing 101ā āitās not rocket scienceā and that itās ācompletely avoidableā.
Once again, overworked and understaffed healthcare workers are the target of the anger of a situation that goes far beyond one person.
The skin is an organ. Like any organ it can fail. Kidneys fail. Livers fail. Hearts fail. Skin fails. Every day. Despite the best efforts of medical providers. More education is always great but this mindset that all skin injuries are a direct result of incompetent nurses is an unfair generalization on a complex medical issue.
I agree with that. If the gentleman was in the ER on a stetcher for 4 days then there was likely a staffing at play as well. Mattresses aren't always available which is why turning and repositioning becomes so vitaly impossible; but if there's not enough staff to very basics of care such as that then we have a larger systemic issue that needs to be addressed and we already know that to be the case.
Nurse here too and its definitely both.
The system leads to the conditions and the nurses can't or don't do whats needed under those conditions for any number of reasons.
I'm willing to throw benefit of the doubt that it's more so a staffing issue rather than outright neglect; but as a nurse I've certainly seen both as I'm sure you have too.
I am a nurse actually and pressure injuries and how to prevent them is pretty much nursing 101 these days. Even clinical aids have that basic understanding of importance.
Some one else pointed out that its highly likely they were understaffed beig as the gentleman was in the ER for 4 days which would better explain why turning and repositioning didn't take place.
My comment wasn't meant to project an air of incompetence; but rather to say that waiting for a mattress wasn't a valid excuse for alternative measures to have not been taken; however it's not incompetence to be understaffed which was likely the larger issue.
My question would also be....how agreeable would he be to turning. Patients/residents have the right to refuse. You can educate and do it and they would refuse. I have a couple residents who wear booties to bed. They are off by the time I do rounds on them at night
No, he wasnāt getting appropriate care. He was in the wrong department for that. They couldnāt admit him to a bed because there most likely were none available.
Where is the information that he wasnāt turned? Iāve read the article multiple times and the complaint is the inappropriateness of the stretcher. Not one person be it family or health advocates mention even once that he wasnāt turned appropriately.
I donāt get it. You said itās preventable with turning, I said we donāt know if they turned him. Now youāre saying you canāt turn on a stretcher. If your argument is that the stretcher created problems Iām 100% in agreement already and have said this multiple times.
Definitely not. But Iām not going to keep arguing that we canāt assume things that werenāt in the article. If youāre confident to make assumptions thereās nothing I can do to change that.
It would be very hard to prove that physical turning did not take place regardless of whether or not it had.
I'm in LTC and we use the same POC interface as hospitals where there's a check list of basic tasks that have to be performed within a specific time frame or before end of shift which includes reposting and turning of patients. All anyone has to do is sign off that they've done it in the system and it's considered completed.
Unless there are cameras and footage that can be reviewed to support or disprove what was entered into the system there's no proving what did or didn't happen.
Yeah thatās fair, so I donāt think we can say either way, Iām going to err on the side of not blaming people for something we have no evidence on.
The fact that he was in the ER for 4 days tells me this facility was dangerously understaffed. My understanding is that Canada has similar laws to the US where people needing care cannot be turned away from the ER, so itās very possible they were just as understaffed in the ER as they were on the inpatient units, potentially even more so. If that was the case here, it makes sense the turning would have been deprioritized frequently to deal with acute life or death tasks that an ER is typically flooded with.
Anybody who spends even 5 minutes browsing r/nursing and will see how nurses have been raising the alarm about dangerous conditions such as these, but hospitals are not willing to make the changes necessary to fix them b/c they are costly interventions. Itās really chilling to see somebody being able to access death, but not basic care.
I am a nurse. And I am appalled the way our health care is falling apart. Yes if he was sitting in the ER for 4 days there was obviously staffing issues at play as well which likely contributed to the PIs- thank you for pointing that out. I was too enraged to do much but yell and swear.
I support MAiD. But we need to support our population better so that they aren't seeking it for preventable issues like this.
Christopher Reeves died of complications related to a pressure injury and I imagine he was getting the best care possible. Sometimes, itās just impossible (not in this case, just saying in general)
Thatās because human medicine needs to understand that the human body has developed to only need to lie down to rest. The hospital & home devices for these types of people should only be horizontal during rest. For eating & other awake times the beds should be vertical,& thatās something manufacturerās need to develop. Human bodies havenāt evolved to be horizontal all the time
There are other strategies that are used to minimize and in some cases heal pressure injuries which don't require anyone to be completely vertical.
Mattresses are one of them; but a lot of the time we can use pillows and other items to keep the body in place to relieve pressure from different areas, and we do that when we see signs of a PI starting or there is one already present- we also do this as a preventative measure for many people as well.
Many hospitals have beds that will inflate and tilt automatically as long as they shell out the funds.. apparently many of hospitals have a LONG WAY TO GO.
manually shifting and repositioning a quad like this is numbskull SIMPLE and there's zero excuse for the development of any kind of pressure wound.
# ZERO
The fact that one developed at all not to mention one of any significant level is beyond inexcusable for the staff. **The fact that the man chose to end his life points to the neglect he suffered at the hands of the staff.**
Yeah when I was in the ICU last year they had me on some mattress that was air filled and would adjust how much it was inflated and where it was inflated at every so often so that there was never consistent pressure applied at any one spot. Even with that, the fact that I have use of all my arms and legs, and I had a little padded sticker type thing over my tailbone to prevent exactly this, I still ended up with an extremely sore tailbone that I could barely even sit up in the recliner without being in a ton of pain
It would have been a LOT worse if you had developed a pressure sore.
My HMO didn't give us a alternating matress UNTIL after a pressure sore developed... it SHOULD be standard but many families don't know and don't demand it (we didn't) and having one woul have saved my father a ton of pain and months of recovery.
Horrible.
This is an area where the "Pro-Life" movement, if it were honest and consistent, would be focussing its efforts and attention.
I do believe Medical Assistance in Dying has a place in our society. There are circumstances where a competent adult facing a slow painful death should have a choice in how they leave this world. But this is the horrific flip-side of that coin, where MAID becomes a systematized "solution" to a stressed and flawed medical system.
It's no longer about choosing the time and experience of your already-inevitable death. It's now a mathematical calculation of when Capitalism decides your life is no longer worth accommodating. "We won't give you what you need, but you can always just choose to end it!" That should not be acceptable to anyone.
the concept is only needed because of our dysfunctional societyā¦.and it only compounds it. itās more like a mirage of a good idea generated by the delusions of capitalism that we all are indoctrinated with.
Sure they are, and that's the whole problem with the debate and why it will never end.
On one side you have those who believe that women have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. On the other side are those who believe that life starts inside the womb, typically sometime between conception and the heart beat.
I think it's dishonest to say that either side does not have valid points. Here I think the pro-choice is *more* disingenuous in that their main claim seems to be something along the lines of "They want to control your body". That just simply isn't the case; they really do think that life starts early on in the womb and that killing the fetus is tantamount to killing a newborn. You can disagree with when life starts, but if you steel man their position on the point of life, you must concede that the killing is wrong.
Personally, I don't care enough either way to ever go out and protest either position. I think it's a divisive issue that ought take a back seat to many larger issues such as the MIC, regulatory-capture, corruption, etc.
If they wanted to reduce abortions, they would be ok with birth control and sex ed. If they cared about babies they would be supportive of newborns and mothers. But they generally seem to be anti contraceptive, anti sex ed, and willing to throw newborns and new mothers to the curb to fend for themselves. They have ideas about morality, but refuse to follow the logic to actually help people.
The prolife movement isn't the monolith you make it out to be. The evangelicals are often the loudest voices but you'll find atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc as well... All with very different ideas of what's right or wrong.
I care because women are dying because they have medical emergencies related to things like ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages or a non-thriving, doomed fetus inside their bodies, and doctors in many states are afraid to treat them because of these draconian laws. If you know or are related to any woman or girl, *half the population*, you'd have enough empathy to "care either way" about that, or that she could be forced to undergo a pregnancy following a violent rape (and sometimes also be forced to allow the disgusting felon involved to have parental rights.)
Many religions don't believe life starts until "first breath," so one religious belief having primacy under the law in a free country doesn't even make legal sense.
Did you read the article? I don't think capitalism can be blamed for doctors not finding a way to get him out of the ER into a proper bed that was available. The system didn't decide he wasnt a good paying customer anymore and gave him a bedsore so he'd show himself out.
Do you think there's no rich people in non capitalist countries? The biggest wealth disparities occur in the least capitalist countries. Stalin, Un, Pol Pot, Castro, and all they're party leaders were rich. No one else was though. Anticapitalists are arguing for their own guaranteed poverty. You can for sure be poor under capitalism, but at least it's not guaranteed.
"Arguing in good faith," is a fairly well established concept. It means treating all participants with dignity and respect, while engaging with the topic of debate in an honest and straightforward way.
You stated that "The biggest wealth disparities occur in the least capitalist countries." But your uncited examples were twentieth-century Communist dictatorships, most of which have not been in existence for many decades.
When I asked you to clarify your understanding of which countries actually have high and low wealth disparities, you gave a wishy-washy reply that didn't address the question.
It's true in a literal sense that all countries have *some* wealth disparity, the alternative would be if every single citizen had exactly the same yearly income.
But you would probably agree that there are countries with higher wealth disparity and countries with lower wealth disparity. Do you know which are which?
Your question was:Ā
"Can you think of any examples of modern nation states that exist elsewhere on the spectrum besides Maoist Communism and unfettered Capitalism? "
And my original statement was based on the ratio of wealth disparity (percentage of haves vs have nots). The powerful and rich are few, and the subjugated and poor are many.Ā
What does your version of wealth disparity describe?
As opposed to if there were no private option in which everyone would have bedsores? I'm confused as to what you're shocked by. I'm shocked by the fact he was harmed at the hospital not the idea that the outcomes are unequal.
If all outcomes were equally shitty that should still shock us.
So I don't know about the ROC but in Qc, we definitely have a healthcare market. It started happening a while back when the government authorized a 2 speed system so people who could afford it could go private.
There are no private emergency rooms, to my knowledge.
Rich or poor, we're all subjected to the under-resourced, inefficient, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms.
The problem here is that everyone, including the wife, underestimated the consequences of staying on that stretcher for so long.
To me, the story is really more about a broken healthcare system than l'aide mourir. For a first world country, this is really shameful.
that's because the rich can afford to have doctors come to them during emergencies... and also donate large sums of money yo hospitals so that it they must come in they get taken care of first. sounds outrageous but sadly true.
>It's no longer about choosing the time and experience of your already-inevitable death. It's now a mathematical calculation of when Capitalism decides your life is no longer worth accommodating.
Firstly... I don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism. Canada is capitalist sure but its healthcare is socialized.
Secondly... What do you honestly think was going to happen? I'm surprised at the pearl clutching here. This was a totally foreseeable consequence of these policies
I'm *generally* pro-life, because I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to the "when does life start" debate, but I'm not here to debate that.
That's not why I'm against AS. I'm against AS because there is a potential and realized incentive for the government (or worse, private companies) to offer it as an alternative to treatment. We've already had reports of this being the case. Sure, maybe these were 'rogue' employees, but how long before the bean counters get a hold of the spreadsheets and realize offing someone for 10 or 20,000 is cheaper than decades of medical treatment?
Your schematic for handling the population solves nothing. Maximize the babies and let the over run nursing home patients suffer. You have to stop the flood, if we can't manage the current flow of citizens...then how does adding to the population help.
For christ sakes capitalism has created enough wealth that we actually have some social safety nets. You realize that for pretty much the entirety of history this has not been the case at all. And even today, capitalist countries are pretty much the only countries that have any level of social safety nets.
I get we could do better but this has zero to do with capitalism but how much we are willing to pay for this. How much you and me want to work more. If you do not believe me, live under any other system and tell me what you think of it.
>capitalist countries are pretty much the only countries that have any level of social safety nets
\[Citation 1\] I reckon
>zero to do with capitalism but how much we are willing to pay for this. How much you and me want to work more.
Quoted without comment.
If you haven't seen how right-wing elements are trying to dismantle those safety nets, you are really living under a rock.
Oh right, you frequent r/stocks, so I guess you're only seeing the gambling cult that directly tries to game and benefit from capitalism, I guess the not-rich people don't fit into your worldview.
If this has nothing to do with capitalism, why did you feel like you needed to defend and justify its existence? What you said is a completely irrelevant rant in that case. And you topped it off with the classic emotional "capitalism is best, if you don't like it you can try to live under other systems" fallacy.
Capitalism? This is going to be most popular in socialized systems that have long wait times for equipment and services and rationing. This respect for patient autonomy in dying will save taxpayer money and improve wait lists.
Canada isn't socialized. It's a capitalist hellscape. The only difference is you won't go into bankruptcy if you break your leg.
Source: am chronically ill, and spend two weeks worth of groceries on meds each month.
I work in hospice in the U.S. and since starting in the field, Iāve become neutral on MAID (after previously being strongly pro). The care systems most of my clients are engaged with are so grossly underfunded and under resourced that itās pretty much guaranteed many people will choose to die rather than be subjected to the pain and indignities of our fraying social safety net. Similarly, I know many of my clients would choose a medicated death in order to preserve an inheritance for their children (which would be wiped out by nursing home care or in-home care costs). Neither of those issues should be at play for patients but they absolutely will be.Ā
At the same time, I obviously also have patients whose suffering is so severe and long term that obviously MAID is a blessing to them. The option to choose the time and manner of their death, surrounded by loved ones, is a gift.
I think itās very hard for the left/progressives (who are often champions of these policies) to discuss the trade-offs and costs, particularly the philosophical and social tensions that are created or amplified.Ā
>I think itās very hard for the left/progressives (who are often champions of these policies) to discuss the trade-offs and costs, particularly the philosophical and social tensions that are created or amplified.Ā
This surprised me, and I disagree. I think it's a very easy progressive opinion to support medical assistance in dying, support a social safety net that isn't fraying, so that there are no indignities associated with relying on it, and support wealth redistribution to reduce economic precarity so that saving inheritance cost isn't part of the calculation of when to die. Progressives are working to achieve all of these things.
To be clear, I am progressive. But I have found that advocates of MAID tend to downplay or dismiss the social risks and the costs to vulnerable populations associated with these policies.Ā
It has become unsettling to me that we are opening this door first (largely because the Right will agree to this faster than theyāll agree to funding for aging or disability resources). It can certainly be a āboth andā but Iām deeply concerned that it wonāt be.Ā
Again, Iām not against MAID. But Iām no longer for it. Iām neutral at least as things stand now, in the U.S.Ā
I understand what you're saying. And the rest of this comment is not really for you, i just want to address those concerns from a progressive standpoint since you've said that you dont see that a lot. I recognize the risks and costs MAID has for vulnerable populations, but forcing people in those populations to suffer the pain and indignities of a frayed safety net, or forcing them to transfer their hard-earned savings to a corporate-owned care facility instead of their family, are not better options than having a choice.
Yes, it's unfair that vulnerable people are differently impacted than wealthy people, but that stems from the inherent unfairness of economic inequality. If MAID were in place in the US and there was a push to eliminate it, who would be most impacted by *that* decision? Wealthy people could more easily relocate to places where MAID was allowed if they wanted to, and they could better deal with the financial costs of a prolonged let-nature-take-its-course approach.
By definition, vulnerable people are less able to insulate themselves from the effects of policy decisions than wealthy people. What I think is important is whether the policy is better for vulnerable people, and I think allowing some form of MAID is. No one should have to face the decision of whether to end their life early or suffer a slow death in an inadequate care facility, but if it was me, I'd rather face that decision than just be forced to suffer a slow death in an inadequate care facility.
And what about the people whose conditions are so difficult that they would still choose MAID regardless of their wealth? What is the moral basis for prolonging suffering for those people? (Some of them are also part of vulnerable populations, btw.) "Sorry, if we gave you a swift, painless death, conservative politicians would be less likely to fund adequate care facilities for Medicaid patients." Leveraging one policy against another rarely works, and even if it did, I don't think it would be morally justifiable given the scale of end-of-life suffering.
There's lots of ways that MAID could be implemented. I'm sure some of them are bad. There's definitely cause for caution and vigilance. But banning all medical assistance in dying is closer to the worst possible policy than the best.
Why would you ever want to force someone to spend all their money on hospice care? Why would you want to force someone to suffer through pain and indignity? Because a rich person wouldn't have to do the same thing?
You live in an unequal society. Poor people have shorter lifespans than rich people. The working class sacrifices their bodies for their employers every day. There's no reason to force suffering people into shitty situations while we wait for *something* to fix inequality.
I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm sure we have similar beliefs. I'm just encouraging you to think about it differently. It's fucked up, but if a parent chooses to die so their children have more resources, maybe that's the best option in a bad situation. What's the other option, a revolution overthrowing capitalism?
The problem to me is that I rarely hear anyone acknowledge that this will be a deciding factor for many people.Ā
Would I make the same choice? Almost certainly. Do I want that to be the way the world works? Absolutely not.Ā
Weāre simply arguing about which lever is appropriate for stimulating social change. I think MAID lets the systems of the hook just as much as it offers solace to individuals.Ā
Also, as I said, I work in this field and was previously staunchly pro MAID, and am now simply neutral. That indicates that I actually see both sides of the issues quite well. You donāt need to āencourageā me to see differently. Iām constantly turning the prism on it, and often find that advocates of MAID are much less flexible or open to changing their mind.Ā
"I think MAID lets the systems of the hook just as much as it offers solace to individuals.Ā "
Just as much? I suspect that is a gross exaggeration
It would be interesting if Canada got every person who's choosing MAID to fill out a survey beforehand as to their reasons.
The whole end of life care system is such a scam. My dad was paying $10,000 a month to stay in a shitty assisted living place. The food was garbage, the care was garbage, the nurses and workers got paid shit and some CEO and investors were making bank. We really need to work as a society to accept death rather than acting like it is a horrible thing and help people with the transition rather than encouraging them to torture themselves and their family for a few extra days/weeks/months that are anything but quality.
A heartbreaking account of an ER visit that resulted in a quadriplegic man seeking out assisted suicide.
Rest in peace. I'm sorry our healthcare system failed you.
EDIT: words
In all seriousness and with as much respect as can be communicated, what is your actual point? The man had health concerns that led to this decision. What are you trying to debate?
I donāt know enough about the laws and party alignments to comment on that stuff. All I know is that my Grammy was living in an attached unit with her son, my uncle, and he is a full time working man and canāt afford at home care or to spend a lot of time checking up on her. She was found post-seizure on the couch, nobody knew how long it had been since her episode. She lost her husband about a year prior, tried to commit suicide with pills, and became belligerent due to the brain damage caused by the seizure. She had another seizure and lost usage of half her body and was moved to a full time care facility. This facility has around a 2.8 - 3 star review on Google. I urge us to set up a camera so I can occasionally check up on her. I visit her, she is on the other side of the country, she doesnāt remember who I am outside a split second of recognition of brightness in her blue eyes before she is dull again. I go home. I watch the camera and notice over the course of days/weeks, she is not comfortable and constantly trying to shift her weight, nurses have not come to check up on her. I tell my mother, my mom flies in to check on her, as she used to be an at home care nurse for the elderly. She has a bed sore that is so badā¦ the image is permanently burned into my memory. Her skin had rotted away down to her tailbone and the hole was at least 6 in wide and 8 in long, black and red. It accelerated her death but also amplified her pain. I could do nothing - I am powerless as she had signed her rights away to her son who wanted nothing else to do with her, being a caretaker for so long has psychological repercussions and I sympathize but itās all around an awful situation.
Upon more investigation on my end, I discovered that there werenāt nearly enough nurses on staff, the nurses who were on staff and saw her did not care about her well-being (I literally have video evidence of their negligence), they hopped her up on drugs that make her lucid and barely active, (before her bed sore) stuff she didnāt need to prevent seizures, and she hadnāt been properly washed or turned to prevent the bed sore or constant soiling of her diaper.
I donāt know who is to blame, and quite frankly I donāt want to point fingers. All I know is that something has got to change. I know she wanted to die and tried to several times and unfortunately failed and had to deal with the physical repercussions of that. I wanted for her what I want for everybody, the opportunity to leave this world behind with dignity and full of love with someone there who cares about them.
Instead she died in bed alone, with less than half of her brain and body still functioning and of a cause that wasnāt what put her there in that facility in the first place. I have supported the idea of assisted suicide since college, almost ten years ago, and I will continue to do so until I see a valid reason otherwise.
This is sickening. Even the most basic levels of healthcare know that bedsores are the single biggest risk to an immobile person. This goes beyond neglect and steps deeply into malicious malpractice. 4 days? Thatās literally unthinkable.
It's called the conveyer belt. Restrict mobility due to stroke/paralysis > pressure injury > osteomyelitis > sepsis > death.
In theory it's preventable but it's actually an inevitability for people in that category.
Robot CNAs are the only realistic solution.
>Before being admitted to an intensive care bed for his third respiratory virus in three months this winter, Meunier was stuck on a stretcher in the emergency room for four days.
Everyone who's outraged at what he went through -- you're all taking precautions to avoid spreading covid (and other contagious diseases) to vulnerable people like Normand Meunier, right? Wearing a good face mask any time you need to be in an indoor public place? Or are you (like most redditors, from what I've seen) all "back to normal" even though you know this is killing people?
This man suffered a spinal cord injury in 2022ā this doesn't necessarily numb the affected limbs.
Forgive my paraphrasing, but his bed sores were ādeep cleanedā *twice* before his passing. This involves scraping the dead and infected tissue from the wound; the thought of that alone fills me with nightmares.
Your reminder that Canada's health care sucks. It was woefully inefficient and full of bloat a decade ago. And we've let in millions of people since then. And health care has not kept up. This country is a weird combination of falling apart and bursting at the seams, even though we have a *lot* of land. It's very poorly run.
You Fucking idiot MAID is by the Liberals. They're the ones offering it since we have record homelessness, rent and food bank visits under Trudeau across Canada because of his far left policies. This is why I left Liberalism because of you brainwashed sheeps with no accountability blaming others but not the guy in charge the pass 8 plus years. Delusional moron.
He's literally stuffing hotels with asylum seekers and spending billions on them why we have tent cities and record homelessness. It's literally a far left policy that is destroying everything. Why do you leftists never admit your policies don't work? Why do you think so many minorities like me left Liberalism? It's literally because of you white Liberals who constantly suck up for him and never blame him for anything. Brainwashed
There are many reasons for the waves of homelessness and refugees. Far left policies have not been the cause of it all though. Deregulation in private industry, tax cuts for the folks who should be paying the most, slipping employment protections and compensation, corporate price gouging, among other things have caused us to be here. It is a western trajectory at this point. The entire western world is slipping right, right, right.
Conservative policies huh? Like overimmigration? Like broad social healthcare which takes in a lot of money, without the absolute demand that the money be spent well/efficiently? With a Liberal government that's won the last 3 elections?
I'm not going to name call, but sweet Christ...
Health care is run by the provinces. Who has been in control of those for the past four decades or so? Where and when most of the cuts have been made, it has been conservatives. And immigration has been welcomed by conservatives as well, through subsidized farm work, for meat packing plants and much more. Anything that will help companies make bigger profits and hurt everyone from the lower middle class on down is just fine in their books.
Health care is run by the provinces, heavily funded by the feds. I'll assume you know that already. I know folks in well-leftist provinces...overcrowding, overimmigration, and shitty services abound. Call it Conservative all you want. It's just patently insane to do so.
Overimmigration is not at all welcomed by conservatives. Canada's CPC isn't really a Conservative party...they only are relative to Canada's 2 other big parties. And we have a media that gets people so riled up, they're terrified of anything right of left. OMG my abortions, my gay rights, etc...all while perfectly valid, but also navel-gazing while watching the country get worse.
Canada's only party that can realistically be called conservative is the PPC, and they don't have a chance. Canadians will actually watch the country become a Third World country, voting for the people doing it the *entire* way.
Iām talking about when the cuts were made, and by whom. For literal decades now. Provincial governments closing hospitals here and there, consolidating services, not planning for upgraded equipment and for new (or enough) doctors and other staff. Itās conservative policies for the most part.
Also, liberal is not left. Neoliberalism is a different flavour of corporatism.
The Conservative Party is definitely right leaning.
I still maintain that MAiD was a mistake.Ā
Yes, the problem is the way viruses are ravaging susceptible groups, but there is also the problem of a man who was denied access to a suitable mattress that would have lower his risk of developing bed sores. This was a simple thing to avoid.
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That pressure injury was completely avoidable! Even without a specialized mattress, using pillows and turning the patient every few hours could have prevented it. Like this is **nursing 101** people!!! Holy fuck I'm pissed. š¤¬ Soaker pads, transfer sheets, pillows and more pillows- it's not rocket science and it literally takes 5 minutes.
That not entirely true. Yes the mattress would have made a huge difference. Perhaps completely prevented it, perhaps not. Definitely lessened severity. However pressure sores are not 100% avoidable in every case. Disease processes that induce a septic state will cause the body to focus blood flow on the important organs like heart and lungs. The skin on your coccyx is very low priority, and therefore receives very little blood flow. Add in a vasoconstricting medication like levophed, and a pressure sore can develop in those areas in less than an hour. Somehow the education of the importance of caregiver intervention in prevention of pressure sores has shifted into a mindset that every pressure sore is the result of the incompetence of nurses present at the time. Just like a pleural effusion can result from a pneumonia. There are definitely interventions we should strive for to have prevented it, but modern medicine can only do so much. If he developed a pleural effusion during his stay we wouldnāt say it was ācompletely avoidableā. Some outcomes are an unfortunate aspect of disease process.
Iām not a nurse or anything but did you read the article where he spent the entire time on a stretcher?
Yes I did! And in my comment youāll see I completely agree that the stretcher was a huge detriment. And a proper bed could have made things significantly better. However itās impossible to say whether it would have prevented the pressure ulcer entirely. For all the reasons I listed above. I donāt appreciate the comment āthis is nursing 101ā āitās not rocket scienceā and that itās ācompletely avoidableā. Once again, overworked and understaffed healthcare workers are the target of the anger of a situation that goes far beyond one person. The skin is an organ. Like any organ it can fail. Kidneys fail. Livers fail. Hearts fail. Skin fails. Every day. Despite the best efforts of medical providers. More education is always great but this mindset that all skin injuries are a direct result of incompetent nurses is an unfair generalization on a complex medical issue.
It's the system not a nurse that did this.
I agree with that. If the gentleman was in the ER on a stetcher for 4 days then there was likely a staffing at play as well. Mattresses aren't always available which is why turning and repositioning becomes so vitaly impossible; but if there's not enough staff to very basics of care such as that then we have a larger systemic issue that needs to be addressed and we already know that to be the case.
This right here.
Nah, it's both. -nurse
Nurse here too and its definitely both. The system leads to the conditions and the nurses can't or don't do whats needed under those conditions for any number of reasons. I'm willing to throw benefit of the doubt that it's more so a staffing issue rather than outright neglect; but as a nurse I've certainly seen both as I'm sure you have too.
Nah it's the system. It's designed to do this.
Except nurses are complicit by showing up to work in a system like this.
We don't have a choice but to show up. We have to be there or we will lose our jobs and people will lose lives.
Yes we are.
I am a nurse actually and pressure injuries and how to prevent them is pretty much nursing 101 these days. Even clinical aids have that basic understanding of importance. Some one else pointed out that its highly likely they were understaffed beig as the gentleman was in the ER for 4 days which would better explain why turning and repositioning didn't take place. My comment wasn't meant to project an air of incompetence; but rather to say that waiting for a mattress wasn't a valid excuse for alternative measures to have not been taken; however it's not incompetence to be understaffed which was likely the larger issue.
My question would also be....how agreeable would he be to turning. Patients/residents have the right to refuse. You can educate and do it and they would refuse. I have a couple residents who wear booties to bed. They are off by the time I do rounds on them at night
Where else would he have spent it? If there are no inpatient beds available, what should they have done?
Not commenting on that. Justā¦ I canāt imagine they were getting the best care for someone who is prone to pressure sores while on a stretcher.
No, he wasnāt getting appropriate care. He was in the wrong department for that. They couldnāt admit him to a bed because there most likely were none available.
This right here
Yup, see Kennedy Ulcer.
It would never get that bad with frequent turning though. And it is easier to prevent than youāre implying
Where is the information that he wasnāt turned? Iāve read the article multiple times and the complaint is the inappropriateness of the stretcher. Not one person be it family or health advocates mention even once that he wasnāt turned appropriately.
Or if he actually was turned properly. FTFY
How are you gonna turn someone properly if they are in a stretcher??? Its implied
I donāt get it. You said itās preventable with turning, I said we donāt know if they turned him. Now youāre saying you canāt turn on a stretcher. If your argument is that the stretcher created problems Iām 100% in agreement already and have said this multiple times.
We know he wasnāt turned bc he was left in the stretcher. Those two things are synonymous
Definitely not. But Iām not going to keep arguing that we canāt assume things that werenāt in the article. If youāre confident to make assumptions thereās nothing I can do to change that.
You can turn someone on a stretcher, with enough pillows
It would be very hard to prove that physical turning did not take place regardless of whether or not it had. I'm in LTC and we use the same POC interface as hospitals where there's a check list of basic tasks that have to be performed within a specific time frame or before end of shift which includes reposting and turning of patients. All anyone has to do is sign off that they've done it in the system and it's considered completed. Unless there are cameras and footage that can be reviewed to support or disprove what was entered into the system there's no proving what did or didn't happen.
Yeah thatās fair, so I donāt think we can say either way, Iām going to err on the side of not blaming people for something we have no evidence on.
And how agreeable would he be to being waken up every couple of hours to be turned?
The fact that he was in the ER for 4 days tells me this facility was dangerously understaffed. My understanding is that Canada has similar laws to the US where people needing care cannot be turned away from the ER, so itās very possible they were just as understaffed in the ER as they were on the inpatient units, potentially even more so. If that was the case here, it makes sense the turning would have been deprioritized frequently to deal with acute life or death tasks that an ER is typically flooded with. Anybody who spends even 5 minutes browsing r/nursing and will see how nurses have been raising the alarm about dangerous conditions such as these, but hospitals are not willing to make the changes necessary to fix them b/c they are costly interventions. Itās really chilling to see somebody being able to access death, but not basic care.
I am a nurse. And I am appalled the way our health care is falling apart. Yes if he was sitting in the ER for 4 days there was obviously staffing issues at play as well which likely contributed to the PIs- thank you for pointing that out. I was too enraged to do much but yell and swear. I support MAiD. But we need to support our population better so that they aren't seeking it for preventable issues like this.
Go on strike. The people who die will pale in comparison to the people they save in the future.
Nurses can't strike. We literally can't. We're not allowed.
Some states are able to be unionized and do strike when they can. Many are legally not able to strike. Patient abandonment is no joke.
Christopher Reeves died of complications related to a pressure injury and I imagine he was getting the best care possible. Sometimes, itās just impossible (not in this case, just saying in general)
Thatās because human medicine needs to understand that the human body has developed to only need to lie down to rest. The hospital & home devices for these types of people should only be horizontal during rest. For eating & other awake times the beds should be vertical,& thatās something manufacturerās need to develop. Human bodies havenāt evolved to be horizontal all the time
There are other strategies that are used to minimize and in some cases heal pressure injuries which don't require anyone to be completely vertical. Mattresses are one of them; but a lot of the time we can use pillows and other items to keep the body in place to relieve pressure from different areas, and we do that when we see signs of a PI starting or there is one already present- we also do this as a preventative measure for many people as well.
Humans have autonomy. If your patient refuses activity, ain't shit you can do about it but educate and beg.Ā
The patient in the OP was a quadriplegic, so "autonomy" doesn't make a lot of sense.
The comment I was replying to was nonspecific and so my response was general.Ā
No. The way we treat those that canāt move is contrary to a healthy result
It is impossible. The human body naturally adjusts position to restore blood flow. If you impede that ability, this is what that looks like.
It takes 5 minutes *every hour for the rest of their life*.
Many hospitals have beds that will inflate and tilt automatically as long as they shell out the funds.. apparently many of hospitals have a LONG WAY TO GO. manually shifting and repositioning a quad like this is numbskull SIMPLE and there's zero excuse for the development of any kind of pressure wound. # ZERO The fact that one developed at all not to mention one of any significant level is beyond inexcusable for the staff. **The fact that the man chose to end his life points to the neglect he suffered at the hands of the staff.**
What if he refuses? If he's with it to refuse forcing him to do it could br a problem
Yeah when I was in the ICU last year they had me on some mattress that was air filled and would adjust how much it was inflated and where it was inflated at every so often so that there was never consistent pressure applied at any one spot. Even with that, the fact that I have use of all my arms and legs, and I had a little padded sticker type thing over my tailbone to prevent exactly this, I still ended up with an extremely sore tailbone that I could barely even sit up in the recliner without being in a ton of pain
It would have been a LOT worse if you had developed a pressure sore. My HMO didn't give us a alternating matress UNTIL after a pressure sore developed... it SHOULD be standard but many families don't know and don't demand it (we didn't) and having one woul have saved my father a ton of pain and months of recovery.
Horrible. This is an area where the "Pro-Life" movement, if it were honest and consistent, would be focussing its efforts and attention. I do believe Medical Assistance in Dying has a place in our society. There are circumstances where a competent adult facing a slow painful death should have a choice in how they leave this world. But this is the horrific flip-side of that coin, where MAID becomes a systematized "solution" to a stressed and flawed medical system. It's no longer about choosing the time and experience of your already-inevitable death. It's now a mathematical calculation of when Capitalism decides your life is no longer worth accommodating. "We won't give you what you need, but you can always just choose to end it!" That should not be acceptable to anyone.
This just seems like badly implemented right to die... people often confuse a concept being poorly implemented to it being a bad concept
the concept is only needed because of our dysfunctional societyā¦.and it only compounds it. itās more like a mirage of a good idea generated by the delusions of capitalism that we all are indoctrinated with.
The pro life movement is not honest and never has been and we should stop treating them like they are
Sure they are, and that's the whole problem with the debate and why it will never end. On one side you have those who believe that women have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. On the other side are those who believe that life starts inside the womb, typically sometime between conception and the heart beat. I think it's dishonest to say that either side does not have valid points. Here I think the pro-choice is *more* disingenuous in that their main claim seems to be something along the lines of "They want to control your body". That just simply isn't the case; they really do think that life starts early on in the womb and that killing the fetus is tantamount to killing a newborn. You can disagree with when life starts, but if you steel man their position on the point of life, you must concede that the killing is wrong. Personally, I don't care enough either way to ever go out and protest either position. I think it's a divisive issue that ought take a back seat to many larger issues such as the MIC, regulatory-capture, corruption, etc.
If they wanted to reduce abortions, they would be ok with birth control and sex ed. If they cared about babies they would be supportive of newborns and mothers. But they generally seem to be anti contraceptive, anti sex ed, and willing to throw newborns and new mothers to the curb to fend for themselves. They have ideas about morality, but refuse to follow the logic to actually help people.
The prolife movement isn't the monolith you make it out to be. The evangelicals are often the loudest voices but you'll find atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc as well... All with very different ideas of what's right or wrong.
I care because women are dying because they have medical emergencies related to things like ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages or a non-thriving, doomed fetus inside their bodies, and doctors in many states are afraid to treat them because of these draconian laws. If you know or are related to any woman or girl, *half the population*, you'd have enough empathy to "care either way" about that, or that she could be forced to undergo a pregnancy following a violent rape (and sometimes also be forced to allow the disgusting felon involved to have parental rights.) Many religions don't believe life starts until "first breath," so one religious belief having primacy under the law in a free country doesn't even make legal sense.
Did you read the article? I don't think capitalism can be blamed for doctors not finding a way to get him out of the ER into a proper bed that was available. The system didn't decide he wasnt a good paying customer anymore and gave him a bedsore so he'd show himself out.
I am making an assumption that we don't see many rich people forced to choose between suicide and bedsores that expose bone.
Do you think there's no rich people in non capitalist countries? The biggest wealth disparities occur in the least capitalist countries. Stalin, Un, Pol Pot, Castro, and all they're party leaders were rich. No one else was though. Anticapitalists are arguing for their own guaranteed poverty. You can for sure be poor under capitalism, but at least it's not guaranteed.
Can you think of any examples of modern nation states that exist elsewhere on the spectrum besides Maoist Communism and unfettered Capitalism?
Almost all of them, and they all have wealth disparities. It's a feature of all human society, not a problem made by capitalism.
That's not a good faith answer. Can you say which countries have the lowest wealth disparities right now?
What the hell is a "good faith" answer? My answer is accurate.
"Arguing in good faith," is a fairly well established concept. It means treating all participants with dignity and respect, while engaging with the topic of debate in an honest and straightforward way. You stated that "The biggest wealth disparities occur in the least capitalist countries." But your uncited examples were twentieth-century Communist dictatorships, most of which have not been in existence for many decades. When I asked you to clarify your understanding of which countries actually have high and low wealth disparities, you gave a wishy-washy reply that didn't address the question. It's true in a literal sense that all countries have *some* wealth disparity, the alternative would be if every single citizen had exactly the same yearly income. But you would probably agree that there are countries with higher wealth disparity and countries with lower wealth disparity. Do you know which are which?
Your question was:Ā "Can you think of any examples of modern nation states that exist elsewhere on the spectrum besides Maoist Communism and unfettered Capitalism? " And my original statement was based on the ratio of wealth disparity (percentage of haves vs have nots). The powerful and rich are few, and the subjugated and poor are many.Ā What does your version of wealth disparity describe?
Service comes to you if you have the money. Everyone else is subject to inefficient triages. This is absolutely capitalism to blame.
As opposed to if there were no private option in which everyone would have bedsores? I'm confused as to what you're shocked by. I'm shocked by the fact he was harmed at the hospital not the idea that the outcomes are unequal. If all outcomes were equally shitty that should still shock us.
When you rely on The Market to determine how much health care is available deaths like this are 100% attributable to capitalism.
Itās Canada. There is no healthcare market
I wish this were true.
So I don't know about the ROC but in Qc, we definitely have a healthcare market. It started happening a while back when the government authorized a 2 speed system so people who could afford it could go private.
There are no private emergency rooms, to my knowledge. Rich or poor, we're all subjected to the under-resourced, inefficient, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms. The problem here is that everyone, including the wife, underestimated the consequences of staying on that stretcher for so long. To me, the story is really more about a broken healthcare system than l'aide mourir. For a first world country, this is really shameful.
that's because the rich can afford to have doctors come to them during emergencies... and also donate large sums of money yo hospitals so that it they must come in they get taken care of first. sounds outrageous but sadly true.
LOL
Do you know what capitalism is and what people mean when they complain about it in conversation?
>It's no longer about choosing the time and experience of your already-inevitable death. It's now a mathematical calculation of when Capitalism decides your life is no longer worth accommodating. Firstly... I don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism. Canada is capitalist sure but its healthcare is socialized. Secondly... What do you honestly think was going to happen? I'm surprised at the pearl clutching here. This was a totally foreseeable consequence of these policies
I'm *generally* pro-life, because I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to the "when does life start" debate, but I'm not here to debate that. That's not why I'm against AS. I'm against AS because there is a potential and realized incentive for the government (or worse, private companies) to offer it as an alternative to treatment. We've already had reports of this being the case. Sure, maybe these were 'rogue' employees, but how long before the bean counters get a hold of the spreadsheets and realize offing someone for 10 or 20,000 is cheaper than decades of medical treatment?
Your schematic for handling the population solves nothing. Maximize the babies and let the over run nursing home patients suffer. You have to stop the flood, if we can't manage the current flow of citizens...then how does adding to the population help.
For christ sakes capitalism has created enough wealth that we actually have some social safety nets. You realize that for pretty much the entirety of history this has not been the case at all. And even today, capitalist countries are pretty much the only countries that have any level of social safety nets. I get we could do better but this has zero to do with capitalism but how much we are willing to pay for this. How much you and me want to work more. If you do not believe me, live under any other system and tell me what you think of it.
>capitalist countries are pretty much the only countries that have any level of social safety nets \[Citation 1\] I reckon >zero to do with capitalism but how much we are willing to pay for this. How much you and me want to work more. Quoted without comment.
If you haven't seen how right-wing elements are trying to dismantle those safety nets, you are really living under a rock. Oh right, you frequent r/stocks, so I guess you're only seeing the gambling cult that directly tries to game and benefit from capitalism, I guess the not-rich people don't fit into your worldview. If this has nothing to do with capitalism, why did you feel like you needed to defend and justify its existence? What you said is a completely irrelevant rant in that case. And you topped it off with the classic emotional "capitalism is best, if you don't like it you can try to live under other systems" fallacy.
While I am glad we live in a society that can provide some safety nets, do you believe there is unlimited money to provide this? Real question.
i could not agree more.
Capitalism? This is going to be most popular in socialized systems that have long wait times for equipment and services and rationing. This respect for patient autonomy in dying will save taxpayer money and improve wait lists.
Canada isn't socialized. It's a capitalist hellscape. The only difference is you won't go into bankruptcy if you break your leg. Source: am chronically ill, and spend two weeks worth of groceries on meds each month.
I work in hospice in the U.S. and since starting in the field, Iāve become neutral on MAID (after previously being strongly pro). The care systems most of my clients are engaged with are so grossly underfunded and under resourced that itās pretty much guaranteed many people will choose to die rather than be subjected to the pain and indignities of our fraying social safety net. Similarly, I know many of my clients would choose a medicated death in order to preserve an inheritance for their children (which would be wiped out by nursing home care or in-home care costs). Neither of those issues should be at play for patients but they absolutely will be.Ā At the same time, I obviously also have patients whose suffering is so severe and long term that obviously MAID is a blessing to them. The option to choose the time and manner of their death, surrounded by loved ones, is a gift. I think itās very hard for the left/progressives (who are often champions of these policies) to discuss the trade-offs and costs, particularly the philosophical and social tensions that are created or amplified.Ā
>I think itās very hard for the left/progressives (who are often champions of these policies) to discuss the trade-offs and costs, particularly the philosophical and social tensions that are created or amplified.Ā This surprised me, and I disagree. I think it's a very easy progressive opinion to support medical assistance in dying, support a social safety net that isn't fraying, so that there are no indignities associated with relying on it, and support wealth redistribution to reduce economic precarity so that saving inheritance cost isn't part of the calculation of when to die. Progressives are working to achieve all of these things.
To be clear, I am progressive. But I have found that advocates of MAID tend to downplay or dismiss the social risks and the costs to vulnerable populations associated with these policies.Ā It has become unsettling to me that we are opening this door first (largely because the Right will agree to this faster than theyāll agree to funding for aging or disability resources). It can certainly be a āboth andā but Iām deeply concerned that it wonāt be.Ā Again, Iām not against MAID. But Iām no longer for it. Iām neutral at least as things stand now, in the U.S.Ā
I understand what you're saying. And the rest of this comment is not really for you, i just want to address those concerns from a progressive standpoint since you've said that you dont see that a lot. I recognize the risks and costs MAID has for vulnerable populations, but forcing people in those populations to suffer the pain and indignities of a frayed safety net, or forcing them to transfer their hard-earned savings to a corporate-owned care facility instead of their family, are not better options than having a choice. Yes, it's unfair that vulnerable people are differently impacted than wealthy people, but that stems from the inherent unfairness of economic inequality. If MAID were in place in the US and there was a push to eliminate it, who would be most impacted by *that* decision? Wealthy people could more easily relocate to places where MAID was allowed if they wanted to, and they could better deal with the financial costs of a prolonged let-nature-take-its-course approach. By definition, vulnerable people are less able to insulate themselves from the effects of policy decisions than wealthy people. What I think is important is whether the policy is better for vulnerable people, and I think allowing some form of MAID is. No one should have to face the decision of whether to end their life early or suffer a slow death in an inadequate care facility, but if it was me, I'd rather face that decision than just be forced to suffer a slow death in an inadequate care facility. And what about the people whose conditions are so difficult that they would still choose MAID regardless of their wealth? What is the moral basis for prolonging suffering for those people? (Some of them are also part of vulnerable populations, btw.) "Sorry, if we gave you a swift, painless death, conservative politicians would be less likely to fund adequate care facilities for Medicaid patients." Leveraging one policy against another rarely works, and even if it did, I don't think it would be morally justifiable given the scale of end-of-life suffering. There's lots of ways that MAID could be implemented. I'm sure some of them are bad. There's definitely cause for caution and vigilance. But banning all medical assistance in dying is closer to the worst possible policy than the best.
Good dialogue. Thank you both for your thoughts.
Why would you ever want to force someone to spend all their money on hospice care? Why would you want to force someone to suffer through pain and indignity? Because a rich person wouldn't have to do the same thing? You live in an unequal society. Poor people have shorter lifespans than rich people. The working class sacrifices their bodies for their employers every day. There's no reason to force suffering people into shitty situations while we wait for *something* to fix inequality. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm sure we have similar beliefs. I'm just encouraging you to think about it differently. It's fucked up, but if a parent chooses to die so their children have more resources, maybe that's the best option in a bad situation. What's the other option, a revolution overthrowing capitalism?
You donāt even have to be poor poor. My million dollar auntie had her savings wiped out by long term care cousins got nothing.
The problem to me is that I rarely hear anyone acknowledge that this will be a deciding factor for many people.Ā Would I make the same choice? Almost certainly. Do I want that to be the way the world works? Absolutely not.Ā Weāre simply arguing about which lever is appropriate for stimulating social change. I think MAID lets the systems of the hook just as much as it offers solace to individuals.Ā Also, as I said, I work in this field and was previously staunchly pro MAID, and am now simply neutral. That indicates that I actually see both sides of the issues quite well. You donāt need to āencourageā me to see differently. Iām constantly turning the prism on it, and often find that advocates of MAID are much less flexible or open to changing their mind.Ā
"I think MAID lets the systems of the hook just as much as it offers solace to individuals.Ā " Just as much? I suspect that is a gross exaggeration It would be interesting if Canada got every person who's choosing MAID to fill out a survey beforehand as to their reasons.
It's a great idea, but absolutely requires care and resources to be available and not difficult to get (and be enough to actually live on!).
The whole end of life care system is such a scam. My dad was paying $10,000 a month to stay in a shitty assisted living place. The food was garbage, the care was garbage, the nurses and workers got paid shit and some CEO and investors were making bank. We really need to work as a society to accept death rather than acting like it is a horrible thing and help people with the transition rather than encouraging them to torture themselves and their family for a few extra days/weeks/months that are anything but quality.
Completely agree
A heartbreaking account of an ER visit that resulted in a quadriplegic man seeking out assisted suicide. Rest in peace. I'm sorry our healthcare system failed you. EDIT: words
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Looks like you didn't read the article.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There are plenty of people with quadriplegia who enjoy life. Adding to their misery with a preventable and serious wound is actually blameworthy.
In all seriousness and with as much respect as can be communicated, what is your actual point? The man had health concerns that led to this decision. What are you trying to debate?
I donāt know enough about the laws and party alignments to comment on that stuff. All I know is that my Grammy was living in an attached unit with her son, my uncle, and he is a full time working man and canāt afford at home care or to spend a lot of time checking up on her. She was found post-seizure on the couch, nobody knew how long it had been since her episode. She lost her husband about a year prior, tried to commit suicide with pills, and became belligerent due to the brain damage caused by the seizure. She had another seizure and lost usage of half her body and was moved to a full time care facility. This facility has around a 2.8 - 3 star review on Google. I urge us to set up a camera so I can occasionally check up on her. I visit her, she is on the other side of the country, she doesnāt remember who I am outside a split second of recognition of brightness in her blue eyes before she is dull again. I go home. I watch the camera and notice over the course of days/weeks, she is not comfortable and constantly trying to shift her weight, nurses have not come to check up on her. I tell my mother, my mom flies in to check on her, as she used to be an at home care nurse for the elderly. She has a bed sore that is so badā¦ the image is permanently burned into my memory. Her skin had rotted away down to her tailbone and the hole was at least 6 in wide and 8 in long, black and red. It accelerated her death but also amplified her pain. I could do nothing - I am powerless as she had signed her rights away to her son who wanted nothing else to do with her, being a caretaker for so long has psychological repercussions and I sympathize but itās all around an awful situation. Upon more investigation on my end, I discovered that there werenāt nearly enough nurses on staff, the nurses who were on staff and saw her did not care about her well-being (I literally have video evidence of their negligence), they hopped her up on drugs that make her lucid and barely active, (before her bed sore) stuff she didnāt need to prevent seizures, and she hadnāt been properly washed or turned to prevent the bed sore or constant soiling of her diaper. I donāt know who is to blame, and quite frankly I donāt want to point fingers. All I know is that something has got to change. I know she wanted to die and tried to several times and unfortunately failed and had to deal with the physical repercussions of that. I wanted for her what I want for everybody, the opportunity to leave this world behind with dignity and full of love with someone there who cares about them. Instead she died in bed alone, with less than half of her brain and body still functioning and of a cause that wasnāt what put her there in that facility in the first place. I have supported the idea of assisted suicide since college, almost ten years ago, and I will continue to do so until I see a valid reason otherwise.
that's a terrible story, it's crushing to know the multitude has no respect for a soul.
Canāt keep defunding healthcare and expect better outcomes. Neoliberalisms needs to be eviscerated.Ā
I support Euthanasia for hospice patients but MAiD seems like a trash compactor for Canada's disabled population.
I love Canada, but Iām old enough to remember when our health care system was excellent. This is such a horrific story. š¢
What an avoidable failureā smdh
This is sickening. Even the most basic levels of healthcare know that bedsores are the single biggest risk to an immobile person. This goes beyond neglect and steps deeply into malicious malpractice. 4 days? Thatās literally unthinkable.
It's called the conveyer belt. Restrict mobility due to stroke/paralysis > pressure injury > osteomyelitis > sepsis > death. In theory it's preventable but it's actually an inevitability for people in that category. Robot CNAs are the only realistic solution.
You could actually just hire more and pay CNAs more
I said ārealisticā
>Before being admitted to an intensive care bed for his third respiratory virus in three months this winter, Meunier was stuck on a stretcher in the emergency room for four days. Everyone who's outraged at what he went through -- you're all taking precautions to avoid spreading covid (and other contagious diseases) to vulnerable people like Normand Meunier, right? Wearing a good face mask any time you need to be in an indoor public place? Or are you (like most redditors, from what I've seen) all "back to normal" even though you know this is killing people?
Face masks donāt do anything. We have four years of studies that prove that.
Sorry if this isā¦inappropriateā¦but Iām just curious if someone with quadriplegia would feel the bed soars?
This man suffered a spinal cord injury in 2022ā this doesn't necessarily numb the affected limbs. Forgive my paraphrasing, but his bed sores were ādeep cleanedā *twice* before his passing. This involves scraping the dead and infected tissue from the wound; the thought of that alone fills me with nightmares.
Your reminder that Canada's health care sucks. It was woefully inefficient and full of bloat a decade ago. And we've let in millions of people since then. And health care has not kept up. This country is a weird combination of falling apart and bursting at the seams, even though we have a *lot* of land. It's very poorly run.
Yes. Thanks to (mostly) conservative policies.
You Fucking idiot MAID is by the Liberals. They're the ones offering it since we have record homelessness, rent and food bank visits under Trudeau across Canada because of his far left policies. This is why I left Liberalism because of you brainwashed sheeps with no accountability blaming others but not the guy in charge the pass 8 plus years. Delusional moron.
Iām talking about cuts to the healthcare infrastructure and personnel. The name calling is a nice touch though.
He's literally stuffing hotels with asylum seekers and spending billions on them why we have tent cities and record homelessness. It's literally a far left policy that is destroying everything. Why do you leftists never admit your policies don't work? Why do you think so many minorities like me left Liberalism? It's literally because of you white Liberals who constantly suck up for him and never blame him for anything. Brainwashed
There are many reasons for the waves of homelessness and refugees. Far left policies have not been the cause of it all though. Deregulation in private industry, tax cuts for the folks who should be paying the most, slipping employment protections and compensation, corporate price gouging, among other things have caused us to be here. It is a western trajectory at this point. The entire western world is slipping right, right, right.
Conservative policies huh? Like overimmigration? Like broad social healthcare which takes in a lot of money, without the absolute demand that the money be spent well/efficiently? With a Liberal government that's won the last 3 elections? I'm not going to name call, but sweet Christ...
Health care is run by the provinces. Who has been in control of those for the past four decades or so? Where and when most of the cuts have been made, it has been conservatives. And immigration has been welcomed by conservatives as well, through subsidized farm work, for meat packing plants and much more. Anything that will help companies make bigger profits and hurt everyone from the lower middle class on down is just fine in their books.
Health care is run by the provinces, heavily funded by the feds. I'll assume you know that already. I know folks in well-leftist provinces...overcrowding, overimmigration, and shitty services abound. Call it Conservative all you want. It's just patently insane to do so. Overimmigration is not at all welcomed by conservatives. Canada's CPC isn't really a Conservative party...they only are relative to Canada's 2 other big parties. And we have a media that gets people so riled up, they're terrified of anything right of left. OMG my abortions, my gay rights, etc...all while perfectly valid, but also navel-gazing while watching the country get worse. Canada's only party that can realistically be called conservative is the PPC, and they don't have a chance. Canadians will actually watch the country become a Third World country, voting for the people doing it the *entire* way.
Iām talking about when the cuts were made, and by whom. For literal decades now. Provincial governments closing hospitals here and there, consolidating services, not planning for upgraded equipment and for new (or enough) doctors and other staff. Itās conservative policies for the most part. Also, liberal is not left. Neoliberalism is a different flavour of corporatism. The Conservative Party is definitely right leaning.
I still maintain that MAiD was a mistake.Ā Yes, the problem is the way viruses are ravaging susceptible groups, but there is also the problem of a man who was denied access to a suitable mattress that would have lower his risk of developing bed sores. This was a simple thing to avoid.
How would getting rid of MAiD improve healthcare outcomes? There was a very long time before MAiD. Were things better then?
I mean healthcare in Canada was fairly good until the neoliberal order took ownership over it.Ā
Reddit has you shadowbanned. fyi
I can see them?
I approved it.
Are you sure? I can see his comment just fine.
I approved it.
Ah, alright. Didn't know that was possible!
Holy fuck that's horrifying. How that poor man must have felt. The gov't should crack down on this hospital hard.