Baby Joseph in peril…again

From Lifesitenews an enraging update to this story:

LONDON, Ontario, February 22, 2011 ( – While things were looking up for the parents of Joseph Maraachli this past weekend, the picture has now become bleaker. In the latest twist in the case the London hospital where their dying son is being cared for is seeking to remove the parents’ decision-making power after they refused to have him taken off life support. Hospital security is also denying them private visitations.

The hospital has asked that the Office of Public Guardian be appointed to assume decision making powers of their son.  And oh, in the meantime, they can’t go into his room alone.   A security guard must be in the room with them at all times.  Why can’t they go in alone? A clue…

The hospital says nine specialists have confirmed he’s in a “persistent vegetative state,” but the family and their close supporters disagree.  Family members say Joseph is fully responsive to touch, particularly that he hates being touched by cold hands, tickles easily, and moves his head when his hair is brushed.  They also say he responds to loud noises by turning his head toward the sound.

The hospital has warned the family that they will be banned from the hospital if they try to take videos, which is preventing the family from documenting Joseph’s responses and movements…

Irregardless of what the purpose of the videos are for – what medical, ethical, moral, or legal right does a hospital have to prevent  parents of taking videos of their dying child – perhaps the last expression or interaction that they will see.  On what legal basis can they do this?

If this story turns your stomach, please read the rest of the article here.  You’ll find information on how to contact the hospital CEO, Ontario’s Premier and Opposition Leader to voice your outrage.

UPDATE: A “Featured Blog” at Pundit and Pundette. Thanks!


9 Responses

  1. […] hospital would not release Joseph to home care. The hospital posted guards in his room to deny private visitation with family. Big difference, […]

  2. […] and I have both written about Baby Joseph’s fight to have the tracheotomy which would allow him to die in peace at […]

  3. That ‘or’ is supposed to be an ‘on.’ Sorry.

  4. It would be one thing if the hospital were intent or preventing the family from pulling the plug. But they’re adamant that the child must die. If they would do the trach the family could take him home. Praying for this family.

    Like Terri Schiavo’s husband, who insisted she must die, even though her parents were willing to take on all the responsibility of caring for her.

    • It’s really something, isn’t it? They just want to be able to hold their baby at home. Where he can die in peace surrounded by family. And now they’re not permitted to be at his bedside alone? I keep checking Wesley Smith’s blog for a response, but haven’t seen one yet.

  5. Dear God. I’m at a loss for words and cannot imagine the fresh hell the Maraachlis are being put through. No pictures? No video? Because the STATE is concerned that something might leak that’s damning?

    Not sure if I’m more sad or infuriated.

  6. Exactly. It’s this hospital that should be banned from his bedside, not the parents.

  7. I don’t even know what to say. How can parents be banned from seeing their own child, when they are not a danger to their child???????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: