The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Yesterday, a judge in Winnipeg ruled that Samuel Golubchuk, an 84-year-old Orthodox Jew, is to remain on life support. Doctors at Grace General Hospital had wanted to pull the plug, in spite of Sam's family's protestations to the contrary. Whether or not Sam stays on life support will be settled in a court trial some time very soon.
If Canada included more private options for medicine, this wouldn't have been a legal issue. Sam's family, friends, and community could have paid for his medical care without having to go to court.
Joseph C. Ben-Ami, president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, explains Sam's predicament, and offers his diagnosis in "Saving Golubchuk: God save us from our health care system."
"The intention of the architects of Canada's government-run health care system were noble. They wanted to ensure that everyone had access to proper medical care regardless of their ability to pay. The belief that the best way to achieve this objective was by making taxpayers responsible for everyones medical bills, instead of individual patients, turned out to be a colossal mistake. By detaching consumers--that's what patients are, after all--from the cost of their consumption, government control only succeeded in setting off an explosion in demand, causing health care budgets for all governments to spiral out of control." Read the rest here...
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Saving Golubchuk:
I don't mean to offend regular readers of this blog, because in fact this comment is not aimed at them, but rather at those who insist that this health care fiasco is an inherent part of the Canadian landscape that make the Great White North better than us cold-hearted Americans.
I ask you this: is this the sum of your patriotism? Telling your fellow citizens to die for a health care system?
I hope and pray McCain wins this November in order to spare us this horror.
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2008-02-14 6:50:02 AM
>"I hope and pray McCain wins this November in order to spare us this horror.
D.J. McGuire | 14-Feb-08 6:50:02 AM
If McCain wins and delivers the kind of amnesty he is known for supporting to America's illegal aliens, a universal health care system is not far behind.
That said, many nations with universal health care systems do not have a ban on private parallel care the way Canada does.
If the U.S. does get a universal health care system it doesn't have to be modelled on Canada's.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-14 7:21:01 AM
"If Canada included more private options for medicine, this wouldn't have been a legal issue."
Not necessarily true. If by "more private options" you mean health insurance, then this sort of situastion would still happen except it would be the HMO refusing to pay rather than doctors making a medical decision, and HMOs try to refuse to pay even when doctors recommend treatments. Also, if by "more private options" you mean health insurance you need to factor in that this sort of situation might not have arisen because if Golubchuk was one of the many millions the US system leaves completely uninsured, then he never would have had any care in the first place.
So for the rare case of the (literally!) brain-dead millionaires whose families want to spend all their money on life support in hopeless cases, Canada's system scores worse than ones with private options. But at the end of the day who would you rather make the final decision on whether or not you get treatment: a doctor whose motive is to aid the sick or an insurance company whose motive is to make profit by minimizing "liabilities" (ie; your costly treatments)?
[As an aside, if not feeding Golubchuk further really is murder, as the family claims, then not feeding others who die of starvation is also murder, so by not feeding the poorest people in Africa, we are all mass murderers. Sounds like God is going to be pissed at us for not doing more!]
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-14 7:21:11 AM
>"As an aside, if not feeding Golubchuk further really is murder, as the family claims, then not feeding others who die of starvation is also murder, so by not feeding the poorest people in Africa, we are all mass murderers. Sounds like God is going to be pissed at us for not doing more!]
Fact Check | 14-Feb-08 7:21:11 AM
Withholding the necessities of life is manslaughter not murder.
Golubchuk and his family have paid their taxes and their health care premiums, they are Canadians.
What, Fact Check, makes you think Africans have any claim to obligate Canadians or Canadian government to feed them or otherwise provide any necessities?
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-14 7:33:52 AM
"Sounds like God is going to be pissed at us for not doing more!"
And if you want a way to make amends....
Posted by: lwestin | 2008-02-14 8:29:30 AM
Fact Check should bone-up on health care facts somewhere other than the CBC. Private health insurance is limited by lifetime maximum benefits, usually one to two million dollars. Uninsured Americans still have better access to health care than Canadians, they just don't have insurance. All public US hospitals have to treat the uninsured. They will usually exhaust Medicaid benefits and saddle the patient with debt (often never paid and also often much cheaper than insurance premiums) but all of this is too much for a CBC sound bite. Your HMO horror stories would be better used in the context of Canadian health care which can be more accurately described as a monopoly government-run HMO (with lots of rotten union attitude on the side).
No system or combination of systems can offer unlimited resources to keep everyone alive. I just prefer a system where you are treated as a customer rather than a bother.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-02-14 11:26:06 AM
I am somewhat concerned that this decision requires that the Canadian system bend over backwards, at great cost to the Canadian tax payer, to accomodate every request with respect to health care no matter how ridiculous or costly. If health care became privatized, perhaps this issue would be resolved. But for now, the argument on Golubchuk's side seems to be "you Doctors have to do whatever we tell you to do, no matter how expensive it is and no matter how useless you think it is." Imagine how much our taxes are going to go up when every person with a wacky religious belief gets to say how the government gets to spend OUR money. What if someone has a religious belief that says that even if there is no brain activity, no heart activity, etc., we have to keep the ventilator on until the body starts to decay? I would much rather let a doctor make that decision than a religious extremist. My tax dollars don't need to subsidize someone's irrational view of life and death.
Posted by: Concerned | 2008-02-14 12:52:05 PM
You raise good points, all of which demonstrate how Canada's one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to health care doesn't work.
If we had choice in health care, Mr. Golubchuk might have been put into a hospital that would have respected the family's wishes to begin with. There are a number of Jewish hospitals in Canada - all built and operated primarily on charity money until they were, for all intents and purposes, nationalized and uniform standards of care imposed.
Another possibility barred to the family was that people might have stepped forward to help pay for medical expenses in this case, including the family itself, to the best of their ability.
There is one thing that needs to emphasized. Sam Golubchuk is not, at this writing, being "treated" for anything. He's being given food and water - that's the extent of his care. Ironically, if Sam had a terminal illness and the doctors had approached the family asking for permission to stop treatment and "let him go" they would have provided almost exactly the same level of care just keeping him "comfortable" that they were asking to be relieved of in this case.
That's why this case is so sinister. Boiled down, the doctors weren't simply asking to let Sam die, they were asking to force his death through starvation.
FOr the reasons you cite, that's the future of health care in this country unless we break the government's stranglehold on it.
Posted by: Joseph C. Ben-Ami | 2008-02-14 2:02:24 PM
Thank you Joseph to getting to the bottom of the matter and in such a clear manner.
It cannot be denied that our present health care system does not work and continues to get worse. An example of a workable system is my dental care coverage that I have with a private insurer. I am free to choose where I want to have my dental work done, and this works fine. Let the government run the insurance side if necessary but it must remove itself from the provision of health care. People can pay the difference between the coverage and cost when required.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-14 2:34:53 PM
I don't think I should be paying to keep this man "alive", even if the cost of doing so is just feeding him for however long. If we pay for this, we pay for every nutjob religious demand that can be made by an extremist Orthodox Jew, an extremist Roman Catholic, an extremist Muslim, or any other. Granted, the Golubchuks should have options in the private sphere, and they should sue the Canadian government because they don't. Right now, they should go to the United States now and seek care there. But I still don't think that I should be paying to satisfy their every wish and demand. It's not my responsibilty to facilitate their religion for them. I hope the court case here is resolved in the doctors' favour, and then the Golubchuk's sue in another Chaoulli type case, opening the door to private insurance and private care in Canada.
Posted by: Concerned | 2008-02-14 3:28:53 PM
Since Africa, the largest continent, has more than enough natural potential to not only feed all of its people but to give them a much better standard of living than they currently enjoy, one must assume 'Fact Check' wants a return to the colonial era and a reassumption of the 'white man's burden'?
Posted by: abcd | 2008-02-14 4:00:43 PM
Here's something to ponder: When is a life not worth living anymore? It still amazes me to no end that people try to end the life of their pets humanely but as a human being we can't even make the choice for ourselves. Why is that? The "sacricy" of human life is pretty much bollock by the time you end up in a vegetive state, yet the state (and religous nuts) can tell me that I don't have the right to end my own life (without slitting my wrists or jumping off a bridge) or have someone help me if I deem my life no longer worth living?
I am not surprised that the Western Standard is trying to spin this as an outcropping of the Canadian Health System and completely missing the bigger picture here.
But ask yourself this: If you would be the guy in the bed with the feeding tube shoved down his throat and "kept alive" but not being able to do anything, would you want to continue this or leave this life (to whatever you think may come afterwards)?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-02-15 11:36:07 AM
>"But ask yourself this: If you would be the guy in the bed with the feeding tube shoved down his throat and "kept alive" but not being able to do anything, would you want to continue this or leave this life (to whatever you think may come afterwards)?"
Snowrunner | 15-Feb-08 11:36:07 AM
A very interesting question.
I guess if you're a person of the Jewish Orthodox faith and want to be buried in a Jewish cemetery with the rest of your family, the answer is contained in your faith.
That answer is that life, with all of it's good and bad, is a gift from G-d and not to be discarded just because of difficulties or expense
To discontinue providing the necessities of life to Samuel Golubchuk is nothing less than an attack on the religion of Orthodox Judaism.
That the Doctors reason for this attack is the mounting cost to the Canadian Health Care system, which brooks no private alternative for which the Golubchuks might pay, is not the fault of the Golubchuk's but the fault of the Doctors themselves, without whom the state monopoly on our health care could not exist.
Believe me when I say, these Doctors are more concerned about their personal wealth than the efficiency and availability of care for Canadians.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-15 1:40:04 PM
Hogwash. The decision by doctors not to have my tax dollars pay for a family to entertain all of their obscure and uncommon religious demands is no more insulting to the Jewish Orthodox religion than saying to a radical Muslim that the Canadian taxpayer doesn't have to pay for some special clerical doctor from Pakistan to care for a patient because a Western doctor isn't acceptable. At some point we have to say there is a limit to which we will subsidise religious practise in Canada. This family should have options in the private sphere, but that doesn't mean that my tax dollars have to pay for the outlandish demands of any family just because they invoke Allah or God or Zeus. Believe whatever you like to believe, do with your dead whatever you want to do; but, dont tell me it's an "attack" on a religion just to say I dont want to pay for it.
Next thing you know it will be an "attack" on the religion of Islam because we choose not to teach classes in public schools on the Koran to any family who demands it. Just because it's someone's religion doesnt meant they have free reign to decide what they do with my and other taxpayers monies. Can't you see where this goes?
Posted by: Concerned | 2008-02-15 6:39:43 PM
If they really want to know if God will support him in extremis, they should pull the plug and yank the tube and wait until he either dies or wakes up and asks for water and food. If he dies, he dies. We all do, and only MAN is currently keeping him alive and taking up resources better aimed at keeping someone else alive who isn't practically dead already! If you really want an 'acid test' on this, the pull the plug and wait to see if God intervenes or if Nature takes its' course. Y'all are idiots if you think that keeping this guy on life support will make a difference. It's just a sick desire to keep the old guy 'alive' so the family can get more attention and keep from thinking about the INEVITABLE end of his life. Heroic efforts to keep people alive are fine if they have a chance of recovery, but totally inappropriate when we all know the ending has been written. Let the old guy die in peace, and get on with your own life, and stop trying to proselytize. In other words, get a life, or die at your appointed time. Any comments on this post are totally ignored and ignorant in my opinion. Everything and everyone DIES, and there are no 'Get out of life free' cards being issued to the best of my knowledge. Life and death are the opposite sides of the coin. Just let the flip take place and don't whine about the results. You never know, you might win. But you always end up losing, no matter how often you 'win' a flip.
Posted by: P'Oed | 2008-02-16 11:13:51 AM
I have to confess that I'm more than a little taken aback by the turn this debate has taken. The commentary has quickly descended into criticism of the family's religious beliefs. This is particularly surprising to me inasmuch as I never mentioned these except in passing in my original article. I did bring the subject up in response to "concerned's" comments earlier on, but again, I did not cite these beliefs as a reason why Sam should continue to receive basic care, rather, I illustrated that if, indeed, religious belief was a factor, that too could have easily been accomodated if health care in Canada was not ruled by an iron-fisted government intent on maintaining its absolute control.
I guess some of you must have missed that Sam's is not sick, he's in a weakened state due to a previous sickness that he has now recovered from. Moreover, he has been gaining strength. This is a man who could actually live several years more. Of course everyone dies at some time - does that mean that we should hasten people's death after making a cost-benefit calculation?
And that, of course, was the whole point of the article - I wasn't arguing for or against the decision of the doctors. I was merely pointing out that such decisions are the inevitable future of our system. The comments that I have read here prove the point, but to all of you who say "let Sam die, why should we have to pay for his care?" I say:
Don't blame Sam or his religion for the fact that you're paying, blame the government for creating a system that forces you to pay. Without the monopoly, Sam's case would never have been a problem. The family would happily have found the means to pay. As it stands now, they're prohibited from doing so by law. Instead they have had to waste their resources on fighting the government.
At the risk of offending - where are the small government, low tax conservatives on this blog?
This isn't rocket science.
Posted by: Joseph C. Ben-Ami | 2008-02-16 2:50:09 PM
A small government low-tax conservative (like me) sees that if the Golubchuks are successful in this case, it's going to cost this already bloated health system massive amounts of money to satisfy every demand that comes under the guise of "religion." I don't want my government facilitating religiou beliefs, and I don't want my taxes high. For these reasons, I don't want the Golubchuks to be saying that I'm obligated to pay for the care of their father until they're satisfied their religious obligations have been fulfilled.
Come on now. Small government, low-tax conservatives already agree that the government should NOT be in charge of administering all health care in canada. But REALISTIC small government, low-tax conservatives realize that this is the REALITY of the situation, and acknowledge that as long as the government maintains its monopoly, we better hope that they spend our money wisely. And this is not a wise choice. If the Golubchuks win this case, my taxes inevitably go up to pay for all of this religion-founded care. Government gets bigger -- they'll have to create another bureaucratic branch to approve all religous care.
This is just more mindless kowtowing to an obscure and demanding religious minority. It's ignoring science and rational thought to the end of furthering this national project of "multiculturalism." Silliness.
Posted by: Concerned | 2008-02-16 6:25:06 PM
I don't really know what more I can write, or how much clearer I can make it. This was NOT a case of religious freedom. You are dead wrong about that. Why you have introduced this element is beyond me, as is your new issue - multiculturalism.
None of the above has anything to do with anything in this case. What if Sam was 30 years old and not disabled but still taking too long to recover fully? What about if he was 6 years old but severely disabled? Obviously you're not advocating euthanising such people to save taxpayers money and I'm certainly not accusing you of suggesting it. But the end result of your utilitarian logic is inescapable and in this, you are unwittingly taking the side of the government and proving my own argument
There is only one culprit here - it's not religion, nor is it multiculturalism. It's the state monopoly on health care. Let's try stick to that instead of exonerating the government and in the process unnecessarily fomenting hostility toward the Golubchuk family simply because they happen, coincidentally, to be religious in addition to just plain decent, caring people who oppose euthanasia.
Posted by: Joseph C. Ben-Ami | 2008-02-16 7:16:15 PM
First, you're fudging the facts Mr. Ben-Ami. You've clearly decided to side with the two doctors the Golubchuk's lawyer has found in the US to state that Mr. Golubchuk's condition is not, in fact, what multiple highly qualified specialists have concluded that it is in Canada. You have decided that this man is just "severely disabled" and "taking too long to recover fully." You're perfectly welcome to draw this conclusion, but of course I'm also perfectly entitled to think you're being disingenuous in your postings.
You draw from your dubious premise ("he's just taking a long time to get better, the doctor in New Jersey said so") that this is "not a case of religious freedom." This is clearly a case implicating religious freedom. Why do you think the family called a Rabbi in the first hearing? Why do you think, when hundreds of people are taking off life support EVERY DAY in situations effectively identical to Mr. Golubchuk's, it has become such a significant issue in this case? Surely you are not so naive, my friend.
Listen, we agree they should have options in the private sphere. But because they don't, you say that these government employees MUST effect the wishes of this family regardless of (substantial and qualified) medical opinion that it would be:
a) unethical (see the opinions of the doctors providing the care, noting that they cannot in view of their Hippocratic oath and their own moral codes administer care in this situation); and
b) a useless expenditure of public funds that at best does nothing and at worst causes suffering.
I say there should be no such obligation. You want me and other taxpayers to pay for this, and I don't. You've been perfectly clear, I just don't happen to agree with you.
You think the "small government low tax conservative" response (in this scenario, given the reality of state-run healthcare) is to demand that the government provide this care when (multiple) qualified and reasonable doctors have decided that there is no medically sound reason for doing so. With respect: I don't believe that's a "small government low tax conservative" response at all. I am by no means "exonerating" the government, as I agree that they are truly to blame for the root of this situation: that the Golubchuks have no options in the private sphere to pursue their own personal religious ideas. But to completely abandon conservative ideals (low taxes and small government) as you have just because there happens to be a government monopoly here is totally unprincipled and inconsistent. If you truly believe that you're a small government and low tax conservative, you cannot possibly support a decision where a government choses to NOT expend resources needlessly at the cost of higher taxes just because you don't like government.
You want me just to "stick to" the state run monopoly on healthcare issue. Sorry, but that's just too easy and everyone on this blog will agree with each other. There are other larger issues here, like the interaction between religious freedom and the state. I don't doubt that the Golbuchuk's are truly good people who care about their father dearly. Obviously you are close to them, and I am certain that they appreciate your support. Unfortunately, I think they and you just happen to be wrong on this issue.
Posted by: Concerned | 2008-02-17 11:14:40 AM
Excuse me: "If you truly believe that you're a small government and low tax conservative, you cannot possibly support a decision where a government choses to NOT expend resources needlessly at the cost of higher taxes just because you don't like government" should read:
"...you cannot possibly OPPOSE a decision.."
An embarrassing mistake!
Posted by: Concerned | 2008-02-17 11:17:18 AM
Ben-Ami states "[t]he basic care that the doctors wanted to end amounted to providing him with food and water" and then asks how long until patients "have access to basic services".
The fundamental problem here is not public health care; it those of us who confuse 'hospital' with 'bed and breakfast' which certainly is not a basic service.
Why are my tax dollars being used to feed Sam? That's his family's responsibility, not mine.
Posted by: Patrick | 2008-02-19 12:04:55 PM
Joseph Ben Ami is correct in his conclusions about the deteriorating state of Canada's health care system, which is his topic.
Samuel Golubchuk's case is less about his religion than it is symptomatic of Canada's moral deterioration. Disregarding the "Do no harm" clause of the Hippocratic Oath his doctors all swore to uphold, they now are “asking to force his death through starvation." Sinister indeed!
Canadians, having abandoned Truth, are quickly descending the slippery slope of amorality: having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; (being) unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoral). Bloggers such as “Concerned” and “Fact Check” are merely going off on tangents to distract from the real issues.
Posted by: Ruth | 2008-02-19 10:42:19 PM
Sorry Ruth. Just because you think I've "abandoned Truth" and just because what you think I'm doing is "amoral" doesn't mean I want to foot the bill for religious extremists whenever they go to a state-run hospital. As Patrick said -- that's not my responsibility, it's the family's if it's anyone's. Just because you're a Torah-thumping or Koran-loving person doesn't mean my tax dollars should facilitate your religious prerogatives.
If somehow you think the private sphere would solve this "amoral" problem, then great -- we agree that the Golubchuks should have options in the private sphere. (Of course, a major difficulty lies in the fact that a physician providing the 'care' to the body of Mr. Golubchuk as he slowly rots from in the inside out would risk the loss of his license, because the administration of futile care is prohibited by the regional licensing body. But let's leave that out of this discussion.)
I might be descending the slippery slope of amorality according to religious extremists. You are descending the slippery slope of advocating a nanny-state driven by Middle-Aged conceptions of science and death. Again, the Golubchuks should be able to believe whatever they want. They should also have access to a private sphere that allows them the opportunity to pursue these beliefs. You, of course, are also welcome to damn the small government low-tax conservatives in this country for being so unspeakably "amoral" for thinking that wasting massive amounts of money to essentially animate the dead is unthinkable. But I prefer not to subscribe to your personal religious beliefs, and I sure as hell don't want my taxes paying for them.
Posted by: Concerned | 2008-02-19 11:00:22 PM
I wasn't surprised when I read about a families fight with Grace Hospital to keep their father alive. They are too quick to 'pull the plug'. It nearly happened to me! I nearly died in ICU at Grace Hospital after I had been ignored for three days on the 3rd floor there after I was admitted for severe pneumonia - the nurses totally ignored me when I said I could not breath. I had pneumonia with complications. They refused to turn up my oxygen and stopped completely coming when I rang the emergency bell. By the way, I am only 51 yrs of age.
They had even recommended I be put on palliative care and left to die! Fortunately, a doctor happened to visit the man next to me one day and when he heard me struggling to breath the doctor had me sent to ICU immediately! I nearly died (A nurse told me) shortly after arriving in ICU. I was very fortunate – thank God. Fortunately the doctors gave me medicine when I was sent to HSC to see a specialist --and I've recovered nicely!
I have purchased a med-bracelet – guess what’s on it? If I am ever incapacitated DO NOT SEND ME TO GRACE HOSPITAL! It’s been two years now since that terrifying experience and I’m just glad to be alive
…I learned from a hospital employee of a different hospital where I was taken (Fortunately) that the ‘employees at the Grace had ‘recommended’ I be put on palliative’ care and left to die with no medical assistance in the form of drugs that could save my life. I am extremely fortunate to have been transferred from The Grace Hospital before I succumbed. I am stable now 2 yrs later and living quite well and healthy!
But I wonder how many have died needlessly in Grace Hospital in Winnipeg Manitoba?
Interestingly, I have noticed on Save Sam Golubchuk site that comments in favour of saving Sam Golubchuk, and the people against euthanasia are from ‘outside’ Manitoba. Some of the comments from this Province are mean and uncaring, what does that tell you? What a friendly place!
Posted by: Dan | 2008-03-17 1:44:13 AM
"Samuel Golubchuk's case is less about his religion than it is symptomatic of Canada's moral deterioration. Disregarding the "Do no harm" clause of the Hippocratic Oath his doctors all swore to uphold, they now are “asking to force his death through starvation." Sinister indeed!"
You are totally missing the point of harm in the Hippocratic Oath. In Mr. Golubchuk's case, he could not survive without constant care and life support. Breathing, eating, and drinking were all being sustained artificially. The physicians had to cut his rotten bed sores off his body. If he went into cardiac arrest, they would have to break every rib in his body to revive him.
Every second that man lived was doing him more harm than good. Death is not inherently bad when life is constant and intolerable sufferering (Deep pain is one of the final senses a person loses before death). By continuing to treat this man, the doctors believed they WERE violating their oath, and on this issue, their decision has to be respected.
On the health care side, this is a huge issue. Of course the family was draining public health dollars by seeking injunctions. Perhaps they should be allowed to seek the funding elsewhere. But what do you think a private insurance company would have done with this case? Said "Oh, let's just pay this family out indefiniately!" ? No! Private health insurance providers are businesses, and they would have stopped payment the moment the doctor's said so.
Posted by: ChrisB | 2008-07-02 3:30:01 PM
I just want to add something about Golubchuks care.
He did not only need food, and water. He needed a ventilator. He also required to have his blood cleaned by a dialysis machine because his kidneys could not do the job.
The situation was not just food and water. He was well on his way out. Is the use of a dialysis machine mentioned in the Torah? If the family were in a situation where they could not afford the treatment would not using the dialysis machine still be a sin? If so who's sin would it be?
Posted by: Frank | 2008-07-07 1:42:23 AM
I really don't see the point here. Do you really think that a for-profit private HMO would be so "noble" and extend the coverage for this poor man and his family? The family would spend most of their days on the phone, on hold, to some insurance company call centre fighting to have every single pill and treatment covered. The real ideologues are those who trumpet the private system without any critical analysis whatsoever. In Utopia, Alberta, there is a never-never land where private healthcare providers are such sweet and generous saviours, and the last thing on their minds would be their bottom line. And, of course, no such thing as collusion in oligopolies exists. But if governments keep intentionally taking money out of healthcare, and then point to it and say "See, it's broken", then maybe one day the privateers will indeed win and crack the golden egg that is Canadian healthcare.
This has nothing to do with the "state monopoly on healthcare" and you know it. This has everything to do with your own amoral ideology in pushing private healthcare, and you ride on the backs of people like these to do it.
This is a bad hospital with bad staff and THAT is the problem here. So why not use your gifts as a writer, your significant platform here on this website and all of your other resources and go after fixing that problem, the real problem. Instead, you seized upon this as just an opportunity to push your own selfish ideology. Shame on you sir.
Posted by: BigAL | 2009-01-27 11:48:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.