• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

MyOwnDrum said:
I firmly believe there needs to be a cutoff in providing treatment to premature babies. I am also against abortion, btw. But these babies are really not viable without extremely prolonged, sophisticated and expensive treatment lasting months and costing more than $1,000,000 per baby. Outcomes vary, but greater than 50% of extremely premature babies have significant ongoing medical problems.
Click to expand...
When you play god, do you insist that your family provide sacrifice, or just bow to your altar?
 
Oftencold said:
When you play god, do you insist that your family provide sacrifice, or just bow to your altar?
Click to expand...

Oh, nice one... ;) Real thought provoking. :rolleyes:
 
winston53660 said:
Are we not playing god with medicine?
Click to expand...
No, the actual practice of medicine involves far too much that is base, far too much that forces its practitioners and subjects to confront the all too mortal limitations of Man, and far too much frustration and failure to give one delusions of divinity.

It is those wishing to direct the practice of a consequential art that they do not understand that can be rightfully called "playing god." The same might be said for inexperienced, inexpert and unqualified politicians running major countries, should that ever occur.

The point of my post was to make people pause and think about what they do in these instances.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
No, the actual practice of medicine involves far too much that is base, far too much that forces its practitioners and subjects to confront the all too mortal limitations of Man, and far too much frustration and failure to give one delusions of divinity.

It is those wishing to direct the practice of a consequential art that they do not understand that can be rightfully called "playing god." The same might be said for inexperienced, inexpert and unqualified politicians running major countries, should that ever occur.

The point of my post was to make people pause and think about what they do in these instances.
Click to expand...

Sometimes as much as it hurts it is better to "pull the plug."
 
Oftencold said:
You mean like the National Enquirer fabrication about Johnathan Edwards having a poorly concealed affair while his wife claimed to battling cancer? Oh! Wait!
Click to expand...

YEa so they got one story right out of a billion congrats! Even the Mail has correct stories you know.
 
TheHat said:
So let me get this straight:

You would rather look at a dollar symbol to determine who is and who is not worthy of life?

Very humane of you.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you have to look at the dollar symbol and the potential benefit. Healthcare is not available in infinite resources. As such, rationing will occur. With insurance companies, the insurance companies decide what's too experimental to cover. Without insurance companies it's rationed by how much you can afford to pay out of pocket. With government it's rationed the same as with insurance companies.

A rationing mechanism must exist, at least until we discover how to create unlimited resources.

It's not a simple choice of life or death for one fetus. Spending the money on 21 week fetus means that money is not available for others. You would be killing someone else instead.
 
Last edited:
Glinda said:
Currently, we are rationed health care by insurance companies, who run on profits and profits alone. They are the true "death panels" in our society. And guess what? Health insurance companies aren't regulated to any significant degree, so if they don't feel like losing their profits to granny and her terminal cancer needs, granny croaks.

Why doesn't that bother you?
Click to expand...

Well pretty simple actually:

A)insurance companies dont tell you its a right, then ration that right.
B)I understand that insurance is not a blanket cover for everything under the sun.
C)They are binding contracts YOU willfully sign.
D)Its not mandatory that you have insurance.
E)Profits are not evil.
F)They are not death panels.
G)Insurance is heavily regulated, if you cant and dont know about this, then you have absolutely ZERO room to talk. Government dictates what the basics are state to state.
H)These are some of the reasons private health insurance companies dont bother me.

Your hatred for anything not government run, is gonna enslave us all and then nobody will have any choice. Is health insurance expensive? Yes, some are. But have you looked to see the mechanisms that are making those rates expensive? Probably not, which is why you harp on the "evil insurance company making profits" stuff.
 
vvx said:
Unfortunately you have to look at the dollar symbol and the potential benefit. Healthcare is not available in infinite resources. As such, rationing will occur. With insurance companies, the insurance companies decide what's too experimental to cover. Without insurance companies it's rationed by how much you can afford to pay out of pocket. With government it's rationed the same as with insurance companies.

A rationing mechanism must exist, at least until we discover how to create unlimited resources.

It's not a simple choice of life or death for one fetus. Spending the money on 21 week fetus means that money is not available for others. You would be killing someone else instead.
Click to expand...

I know all about limited resources. You dont have to explain it to me.:2wave:

Fact is these liberals are telling people healthcare is a right. Well, a right is not rationable. Rights are not tied to monetary funds. You cant run out of a right to something.

Insurance by default, are not limitless. Nor is the government. I would much rather see healthcare at the private level then at the government level, b/c at least at the private level, people have recourse and can take action against them. At the government level? Not so much, unless you can show me where citizens are able to opt out of government programs like SS or Medicare. This "public option", is no option at all. Not if you pay attention to what they are saying about moving to a single payer system, their idea is to get rid of private insurance altogether, and if people dont wake up, their entire lives will be run and dictated by the government according to whatever health standard all the government "experts" claim them to be that particular day.

Why you folks, cant see this, I havent the slightest clue. Lack of foresight and basic understanding of history and the constant want of government to accumulate more power unto itself isnt hard to find throughout history. People have become mentally lazy and have quit fighting against tyrannical, overbearing government for some reason.
 
UtahBill said:
Who says I am playing God? I say let God determine if a fetus survives.
The doctors should stay out of it. Doctors and religious do-gooders are the ones playing god, trying to make people have their babies against their will, and force children to be raised by parents who don't want them.
Click to expand...

Wow, you comment couldnt be more out of wack.

So doctors are playing God by saving lives? Are you some sort of extreme naturalist or something? Should we just run back to the caveman days and forget about making our lives better?

Nobody is making people have babies against their will. If they are, they are prosecuted for it.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Theology Professor Explores Hard Moral Choices
in Neo-Natal Care
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like this Catholic Priest, is just another weak kneed liberal Priest. There is not 50 million people without insurance. So right there, that tells me he doesnt have a clue.

Plus, its pretty difficult to preach Christ's teachings while your dictating whose life is worth saving. I am pretty sure Christ's teachings would be something along the lines of all are worthy in the eyes of the Lord. I dont recall anything concerning monetary matters about Christ saving his brethern.

And we wonder why the Catholic Church in America is in trouble? This Priest is a perfect example.
 
TheHat said:
It sounds to me like this Catholic Priest, is just another weak kneed liberal Priest. There is not 50 million people without insurance. So right there, that tells me he doesnt have a clue.

Plus, its pretty difficult to preach Christ's teachings while your dictating whose life is worth saving. I am pretty sure Christ's teachings would be something along the lines of all are worthy in the eyes of the Lord. I dont recall anything concerning monetary matters about Christ saving his brethern.

And we wonder why the Catholic Church in America is in trouble? This Priest is a perfect example.
Click to expand...
he's not a priest....did you read the article?
 
TheHat said:
Wow, you comment couldnt be more out of wack.

So doctors are playing God by saving lives? Are you some sort of extreme naturalist or something? Should we just run back to the caveman days and forget about making our lives better?

Nobody is making people have babies against their will. If they are, they are prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

your poorly formed opinion is noted....and you know that is not what I am saying.
Doctors are there to provide treatment where such treatment makes sense, but NOT to make decisions to keep terminal patients alive a few more days at great expense to the public, or to stretch the boundaries trying to find out if an extremely premature baby might "make it", no matter the cost.

Doctors kept one of my nephews alive, spending large sums of money performing surgeries right after birth, only to tell the parents that the boy would not live 6 months. He was retarded, never spoke, never weighed over 20pounds, essentially never developed; but he lived 42 months and the financial and emotional strain on the family was considerable. A local doctor went to the hospital and threatened the doctors involved, either reduce or eliminate your fees or face him in court in behalf of the parents.
Those doctors never told the parents, IN ADVANCE, all the issues, they just decided to play God. Like some posters here, they have no conscience when it comes to making other people suffer needlessly, all in the name of medical science....
 
TheHat said:
It sounds to me like this Catholic Priest, is just another weak kneed liberal Priest. There is not 50 million people without insurance. So right there, that tells me he doesnt have a clue.

Plus, its pretty difficult to preach Christ's teachings while your dictating whose life is worth saving. I am pretty sure Christ's teachings would be something along the lines of all are worthy in the eyes of the Lord. I dont recall anything concerning monetary matters about Christ saving his brethern.

And we wonder why the Catholic Church in America is in trouble? This Priest is a perfect example.
Click to expand...

One thing the Catholic Church is, is very firm on the issue of pro-life.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I firmly believe there needs to be a cutoff in providing treatment to premature babies. I am also against abortion, btw. But these babies are really not viable without extremely prolonged, sophisticated and expensive treatment lasting months and costing more than $1,000,000 per baby. Outcomes vary, but greater than 50% of extremely premature babies have significant ongoing medical problems.
Click to expand...

And that cutoff should be when they die. No time before.
 
Laila at lest they coud have tried to save the wee babs,what a shame,i agree
with Liblady,doctors can u trust them,no way,also the we one might have survived,u never know.bless the we soul.

mikeey
 
liblady said:
adopt? she's 22.......how about some psychiatric care?
Click to expand...

Forget care. The lady needs birth control or lessons on how to use it.
I didn't even notice her age but damn.
 
TheHat said:
I hope your not in the scientific field or the technology field b/c you are going to bankrupt your company and possibly kill millions in the future b/c you werent willing to advance medicine and technology to save lives. :thumbs:

100 years from now, a baby at 22 weeks will not only be viable but will be routine. 200 years or 300 years from now? That is the great thing about medicine technology. We find ways to sustain life, b/c that is what medicine is all about. This idea of using medicine to kill is as sick and twisted as the Nazis purging Jews.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but this baby wasn't (won't be?) born 100 years from now. It was born now, and a baby at 22 weeks is NOT viable today.

Furthermore, they didn't "use medicine to kill." They just didn't provide treatment.
 
I find it funny that the people shrieking the loudest about the British government not spending millions to prolong this baby's life by a few hours/days, are the same people who shriek the loudest about socialized medicine and how we should allow people to die if they can't afford insurance. ;)
 
mikeey said:
Laila at lest they coud have tried to save the wee babs,what a shame,i agree
with Liblady,doctors can u trust them,no way,also the we one might have survived,u never know.bless the we soul.

mikeey
Click to expand...

No we shouldn't save it.
Keep it alive for a few days? Weeks? And in the meantime prolong the suffering and pain and inevitable result of death at the end? Since when are doctors those who torture?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I firmly believe there needs to be a cutoff in providing treatment to premature babies. I am also against abortion, btw. But these babies are really not viable without extremely prolonged, sophisticated and expensive treatment lasting months and costing more than $1,000,000 per baby. Outcomes vary, but greater than 50% of extremely premature babies have significant ongoing medical problems.
Click to expand...

This is a good argument for abolishing all government welfare.

I mean, if an innocent newborn baby isn't worthy of our tax dollars, then how can you justify giving money to a lazy / irresponsible grown up?

This incident merely highlights the inevitable conclusion of all leftist social policy. That a person's ultimate worth is simply a function of tax dollars; a variable in some indiscriminate equation which determines the most "pragmatic" option.

There is such a thing as being too pragmatic, you know...
 
Ethereal said:
I mean, if an innocent newborn baby isn't worthy of our tax dollars, then how can you justify giving money to a lazy / irresponsible grown up?
Click to expand...

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.
Click to expand...

The reason there is a cut off is because the likelihood of it surviving is extremley low.
What is the point in giving false hope to parents and then it dying anyway?
It's a waste of money and resources which can be directed at perhaps babies who have a higher chance of life.
 
Yes, if only she lived in America, that morally superior land, where her possession of money would determine whether or not her baby would have lived or died.
 
Ethereal said:
This is a good argument for abolishing all government welfare.

I mean, if an innocent newborn baby isn't worthy of our tax dollars, then how can you justify giving money to a lazy / irresponsible grown up?
..
Click to expand...

Like Terri Schiavo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom