• 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!

Duggar Baby Discharged From Hospital

samsmart said:
The mother said that having too many kids is like saying there's too many flowers.
Click to expand...

Tell that to someone with allergies. Heheh
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Yes..........

Do you?
Click to expand...

I'm tempted to say that rapists, murderers, child molesters don't deserve medical treatment of any kind. I don't think I would be comfortable morally knowing, however, that someone died just because I said they couldn't have medical treatment. That seems wrong.

Who else do you consider not worthy of medical treatment besdies underweight babies?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
All extremely high medical bills raise the premiums for everyone. I, personally, oppose medical intervention for very low birth weight babies. I believe there should be a cutoff at some point. As technology has advanced, I think these hard choices become financially and ethically necessary.
Click to expand...

Ummm, we advance medical technology so we don't have to make these choices financially and ethically necessary. Before such technology was available, yeah, we'd have to let "nature take it's course" with low birth weight babies. But technological advances in medicine means that we don't have to anymore and can use technology to help others. What's the point of developing technology if we're not allowed to use it?
 
Mellie said:
Just because it's not popular to have a large family anymore doesn't mean there's something inhuman about it.
Click to expand...

I was raised by strong proponents of the ZPG movement.
Although I do not personally feel it necessary to the survival of the planet that individual couples adhere to some sort of self-imposed two-child maximum, there is something about the reproductive excess of the Duggars that strikes me as both selfish and immoral.
 
samsmart said:
Ummm, we advance medical technology so we don't have to make these choices financially and ethically necessary. Before such technology was available, yeah, we'd have to let "nature take it's course" with low birth weight babies. But technological advances in medicine means that we don't have to anymore and can use technology to help others. What's the point of developing technology if we're not allowed to use it?
Click to expand...

The cost of treatment for the acute phase of a severely premature baby is greater than $1,000,000 per baby. Then, there is a lifetime of costs for ongoing expenses for the chronic health and developmental problems that the majority of these babies go on to have.

I believe this poses both an unreasonable financial burden on society as a whole, with a poor risk benefit ratio, and an ethical dilemma concerning the diversion of limited healthcare resources to one beneficiary, instead of using that money to benefit many.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
The cost of treatment for the acute phase of a severely premature baby is greater than $1,000,000 per baby. Then, there is a lifetime of costs for ongoing expenses for the chronic health and developmental problems that the majority of these babies go on to have.

I believe this poses both an unreasonable financial burden on society as a whole, with a poor risk benefit ratio, and an ethical dilemma concerning the diversion of limited healthcare resources to one beneficiary, instead of using that money to benefit many.
Click to expand...

What about people with Muscular Dystrophy or Type 1 Diabetes or Dwarfism or any chronic disease in which they'll have to have constant medical treatment of the rest of their lives? Are you against treatment for them?
 
Mellie said:
I'm tempted to say that rapists, murderers, child molesters don't deserve medical treatment of any kind. I don't think I would be comfortable morally knowing, however, that someone died just because I said they couldn't have medical treatment. That seems wrong.

Who else do you consider not worthy of medical treatment besdies underweight babies?
Click to expand...

I believe that much of end-of-life treatment in the United States is a waste of limited resources. I think eventually we will be forced by financial constraints to limit access to expensive ICU treatment, and treatment of chronic diseases requiring extraordinary means, such as kidney dialysis as an example.

I also feel strongly that those who abuse their own bodies repeatedly should not expect society to bail them out over and over again, at great expense. Examples of this would be chronic alcoholism, non-compliant diabetics, tobacco abuse.

Advanced medical technologies are extremely expensive.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I believe that much of end-of-life treatment in the United States is a waste of limited resources. I think eventually we will be forced by financial constraints to limit access to expensive ICU treatment, and treatment of chronic diseases requiring extraordinary means, such as kidney dialysis as an example.
Click to expand...

Verrrry interesting.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I believe that much of end-of-life treatment in the United States is a waste of limited resources. I think eventually we will be forced by financial constraints to limit access to expensive ICU treatment, and treatment of chronic diseases requiring extraordinary means, such as kidney dialysis as an example.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are right and I think its going to happen whether health care is socialized or if it is fully private.

It is a sad thing, but with health care costs rising at an insane rate, I don't see how it is avoidable. The fact is that we simply cannot afford to save everyone, even though I wish we could.

However, I do think that if we went the socialized medicine route, we could at least hold off the crash for a longer time.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The fact that she had 19 kids is medical technology. First off, child birth is a rather dangerous procedure. Before modern science and technology, women died quite often while giving birth. Also, we're designed to have 1 kid at a time. While there are natural variants which can produce twins, typically it is a single child. Third, as the age of the person increases, most notably the mother but there are also aging affects with the father, the chances of various birth defects rises significantly. Human beings were not designed to have litters nor do we need to continually reproduce. Prey species have litters and constantly reproduce.
Click to expand...

in 1800 the birthrate for American women was 7 or 8. lower birthrates are the result of technology.
 
Those kids are going to grow up and probably contribute millions of dollars in taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom