• 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'

PeteEU said:
Since when am I dismissing the story because it is the Daily Mail? I am questioning the story and I have every right to do so. And after further minor investigation you suddenly find out the reality behind this hatchet job of a story.
Click to expand...
You constantly dismiss source you don't like without much of an argument. Last time your argument was "they didn't have the correct metholody" even though their arguments were simple general marcoeconomic ones around sourced figures.
Fact: no law or rules were broken. Each hospital each doctor in conjunction with the patient has to make their own decisions on the subject.
Fact: had the baby lived then it would have set a world record in the earliest born ever in human history by a whole day.
Fact: Babies born under 22 weeks have an under 1% of survival. That survival rate goes up the further in the pregnancy we go.
Fact: Babies born at 22 to around 30 weeks almost never live a normal life and are plagued with issues including mental and physical handicap.
Fact: Babies born at under 22 weeks of pregnancy do not have developed enough things like.. lungs and a heart... kinda needed to live no?

It is funny how the Daily Mail conveniently "forgot" or down toned these facts in order to yet again go after the NHS. Yes her story is heartbreaking but it is no different than any other woman who cant bear children or has lost a child. Why did the Daily Mail do this story? Because a heartbroken woman accused the hospital of murdering her child? Is that the standard of journalism we have to accept by anyone, a standard that requires every accusation to be published by the media, regardless the validity of the accusation?

It is also funny that this is not the first time the Daily Mail has done such a story with vague facts and "ups forgot to mention that" bits, and all in order to slam the NHS.

Now the even funnier thing is that the usual right wing suspects on these boards, bought the story hook line and sink without doing the slightest amount of research.. much like how many thought Steven Hawking would have been "murdered" by the NHS long ago if lived in the UK................and it is even more funny since it is not the first time a Daily Mail story has been published and been torn apart by me and others after basic research and yet the same suspects continue to promote these stories because the headlines happen to fit into their world view....

So again, I do not dismiss the story based on it is the Daily Mail alone, but what is in the article and the history of "truthfulness" when it comes to the stories done by the Daily Mail on the NHS. Maybe you should call the Daily Mail and ask them to fact check their stories?
Click to expand...
None of this changes the facts that you made comments that were aimed at dismissing the source without looking much at its arguments. I and others at least got this impression, perhaps we were too influenced by your past behaviour and owe you an apology but generally I think it was a far representation of your comments.
 
Zyphlin said:
So just so I get you right.

You're in favor of, in this case, the tax payers having to foot the bill of potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for what would be essentially a 1 in a million chance of actually saving the child? Very fiscally responsable of you.
Click to expand...

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.

How do you know the odds, when you dont even put forth the effort?

Just goes to show you how selfish and self-centered people are. Its a human being for Christ's sake. But thank you, for showing us all how rationing will be the order of the day under your dictatorial Obamacare.

Nothing like the government getting decide who lives and dies eh? Makes you wonder why we fought a world war over that very idea not even 100 years ago.
 
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.

How do you know the odds, when you dont even put forth the effort?

Just goes to show you how selfish and self-centered people are. Its a human being for Christ's sake. But thank you, for showing us all how rationing will be the order of the day under your dictatorial Obamacare.

Nothing like the government getting decide who lives and dies eh? Makes you wonder why we fought a world war over that very idea not even 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

That's not fair to accuse people of being self-centered for having some sort of limits on costly, extraordinary medical care with an extremely poor prognosis. It's not the same as infanticide or abortion. And it's taking money out of a limited healthcare dollar, driving up costs for everyone.

There are millions in this nation who can't afford insurance. Part of the problem is the astronomical cost of some treatments. Costly medical breakthroughs are made every year. The scientists, doctors, nurses, radiology techs, lab techs, manufacturers of costly medical equipment, drug companies, medical records workers, computer support personnel, housekeeping, food services, etc, all have a right to make a living wage. Medical miracles don't materialize out of thin air.
 
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.

How do you know the odds, when you dont even put forth the effort?

Just goes to show you how selfish and self-centered people are. Its a human being for Christ's sake. But thank you, for showing us all how rationing will be the order of the day under your dictatorial Obamacare.

Nothing like the government getting decide who lives and dies eh? Makes you wonder why we fought a world war over that very idea not even 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

My position was clearly laid out earlier in this thread. If you want to hear it, go read it, and then respond to it. I'm not going to restate it here for you because you want to throw some hysterics let alone make wildly laughable assosiations such as "[my] dictatorial obamacare"
 
MyOwnDrum said:
That's not fair to accuse people of being self-centered for having some sort of limits on costly, extraordinary medical care with an extremely poor prognosis. It's not the same as infanticide or abortion. And it's taking money out of a limited healthcare dollar, driving up costs for everyone.
Click to expand...

It sure is hell is fair.

Sorry if you find the truth to hard to swallow. Letting a human being die b/c it didnt make it to a certain age is freaking asinine. But that is what you get with government run horse****.

Do you listen to what your saying? Your premise is that rationing care is OK. Either healthcare is a right, as all the progressive liberals claim it to be, or it isnt. You cant pick and choose who deserves the right and who doesnt based on age.


There are millions in this nation who can't afford insurance. Part of the problem is the astronomical cost of some treatments. Costly medical breakthroughs are made every year. The scientists, doctors, nurses, radiology techs, lab techs, manufacturers of costly medical equipment, drug companies, medical records workers, computer support personnel, housekeeping, food services, etc, all have a right to make a living wage. Medical miracles don't materialize out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about wages? If you want living wages, then you dont go send the government in to take it over.....lol.

I am just amazed how people are defending the rationing of care through the government, after the government claimed that wouldnt happen.

Cost will always rise as long as we the insuree, is playing with someone elses money. Why do you think it is cheaper if you buy things direct? You take out the middle man who drives up cost.
 
Zyphlin said:
My position was clearly laid out earlier in this thread. If you want to hear it, go read it, and then respond to it. I'm not going to restate it here for you because you want to throw some hysterics let alone make wildly laughable assosiations such as "[my] dictatorial obamacare"
Click to expand...

Well lay it out again, or dont make silly comments to me.

Your the one handing our 1 in a million chance, when you dont have the slightest clue. Nevermind you cant give odds when they dont even try to save the life.
 
Wessexman said:
Or maybe it is the doctors duty to save its life and not to decide for themselves whether its life its worth it. Now I don't know about this specific situation but this laissez faire attitude I find quite distrubing.
Click to expand...
i assure you it's not a decision i would make lightly. i'm NOT sure i believe this woman, however. maybe it just wasn't possible.
 
TheHat said:
It sure is hell is fair.

Sorry if you find the truth to hard to swallow. Letting a human being die b/c it didnt make it to a certain age is freaking asinine. But that is what you get with government run horse****.

Do you listen to what your saying? Your premise is that rationing care is OK. Either healthcare is a right, as all the progressive liberals claim it to be, or it isnt. You cant pick and choose who deserves the right and who doesnt based on age.




Who said anything about wages? If you want living wages, then you dont go send the government in to take it over.....lol.

I am just amazed how people are defending the rationing of care through the government, after the government claimed that wouldnt happen.

Cost will always rise as long as we the insuree, is playing with someone elses money. Why do you think it is cheaper if you buy things direct? You take out the middle man who drives up cost.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know too much about medicine. Also, you have a disrespectful way of discussing the subject, requiring the auto-censor to bleep out words regularly.
 
liblady said:
i read it....i just don't necessarily believe a lay person's opinion that his life could have been saved.
Click to expand...

How do you know when they dont try?....lol.

What in the world??????:confused::confused:
 
MyOwnDrum said:
You obviously don't know too much about medicine. Also, you have a disrespectful way of discussing the subject, requiring the auto-censor to bleep out words regularly.
Click to expand...

No, I sure dont, I only have 2 doctors, a PA, and about 4 nurses in my immediate family, along with a dosemitrist (spelling sorry)....lol.

You dont like the way I bring my arguement, then dont comment to me. :thumbs: I dont have time for bull****. Nitty-gritty is what I am after.

Someone says they dont know if it would have helped the baby, I say, how the hell do you know unless you try to save the baby?

Rationing care through the government, when the government says care is a right kind of bothers me. It should bother everyone else too. Unless you dont understand and cant comrehend what a "right" actually is, if that be the case, then its time to figure out what a right actually is.
 
Here's one Catholic theologen's take on this subject.

Theology Professor Explores Hard Moral Choices
in Neo-Natal Care

His project, “Treatment of Critically Ill Newborns: The Social Quality of Life Model in Light of Catholic Social Teaching,” examines the ethics of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments for profoundly ill newborns, rather than spending millions on life support systems, therapies and lifelong institutional care. Camosy, who is using his grant to finish a book on the subject, Too Expensive to Treat? Limited Healthcare Resources and the Neonatal ICU for Eerdmans Publishing, admitted that he may be pressing a hot button once again.

A devout Roman Catholic, Camosy said that a case can be made for withholding treatment from profoundly ill newborns by using the church’s distinction between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” treatment. Church teachings require that all means of “ordinary,” or proportionate, treatment must be administered to the sick or dying. But omissions or curtailments of “extraordinary,” or disproportionate, treatments are considered morally and ethically acceptable.
Click to expand...
 
Theology Professor Explores Hard Moral Choices
in Neo-Natal Care

“Nobody wants to talk about this issue,” Camosy said. “Our society has a limited amount of money to spend on health care, and we need to allocate it in ways that will help more people, instead of blindly spending it.

“My first move is to uphold the full moral value of even the sickest newborn babies. They do not count less than any other human life,” said Camosy. But, he said, it also means that they do not count more. Therefore, the disbursal of resources might lead to a situation, given health care constraints, where doctors might have to choose between a 47-year-old diabetic and a 24-week-old baby, he said.

“We mustn’t sweep this problem under the rug by hiding behind easy euphemisms like, ‘You can’t put a price on life,’” he said. “When you have a society that has 50 million people without health insurance, you have to allocate resources fairly. How can society justify spending $30 million on one patient?”
Click to expand...
 
TheHat said:
Rationing care through the government, when the government says care is a right kind of bothers me.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
No matter what system we end up with, we need some sorts of limits to ensure we don't go broke. Having HMOs pool financial resources or the government doing it are both forms of socialized medicine.
 
TheHat said:
Perhaps you shouldnt be playing God with other people's lives? Who are you to determine what is viable and what is not? Life is life. You have no rights to take it b/c it doesnt meet your own personal standards of living.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Um, this woman wanted her baby actually. But she wanted society to pay the more than $1,000,000 to pay for the medical bills with an extremely poor prognosis likely.
 
PeteEU said:
If it is true, then yes.. however it is the Mail.. guess next thing you want us to believe is stories from the National Enquirer?
Click to expand...
You mean like the National Enquirer fabrication about Johnathan Edwards having a poorly concealed affair while his wife claimed to battling cancer? Oh! Wait!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom