Premature baby not allowed to live under G.B. nationalized health care plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jazzy - don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this issue is trivial. It IS a growing concern for me but it is important to know the ACTUAL reality of this issue. Remember the global warming hype? Y2K hype? now it's health care hype.

Just know this - What I'm strongly against this health care reform is the mandatory health insurance and public option. Period. rest of it... I'm fine with it.
 
Jiro said:
well you're talking about only about 16% of Americans who are uninsured so yes more than 70% Americans can afford health insurance. Out of 16%, they probably choose not to have one.

and no I did not say ALL my friends. I said MOST of my married friends.
Click to expand...

Most people who have health insurance do not pay for it themselves. They are lucky enough to either (a) have Medicare (2) have Medicaid or (3) work for a company that pays for most of the cost of the health insurance.
Most people who do not have health insurance work at jobs that do not pay for health insurance. If the company pays for health insurance, it pays only for half the cost and wants the worker to pay the other half. But, these kinds of jobs are usually low paying, and the worker cannot afford to buy the health insurance.
Does that mean the person is making a "choice" not to get health insurance? I guess so. But the choice is really between paying for food, a place to live, and health insurance. Most people choose food and a place to live. I don't blame them - I would too.
Jiro, I understand you well that you mentioned that you did not say ALL your friends. You said MOST of your married friends. Well, they are same thing. Why let it bothers you? Who cares? :cool2:
 
Jiro said:
quite the contrary. a small view considered it as a form of socialism. other viewed it as communism or whatsoever. majority viewed it as A TERRIBLE SOLUTION.
Click to expand...

Yup.. :cool2:
 
jazzy said:
I see with my own eyes on the streets. US census is not 100 percent accurate. I have seen enough and 16 percent is just guessing.
Click to expand...

True. That is wy they always post their +/- error variability.
 
We went from a baby allegedly killed by jerk doctors in Great Britain, to avoiding census takers in Washington DC? Well done. :giggle:
 
saywhatkid said:
We went from a baby allegedly killed by jerk doctors in Great Britain, to avoiding census takers in Washington DC? Well done. :giggle:
Click to expand...

Agreed. We have come to discussing something that is factual rather than anecdotal.:lol:
 
Ok here is my two cents on this arguement, whether if wanted or not. As stated earlier the baby could have been made comfortable regardless of whether if it lived or died, no matter what was wrong with this baby it still deserved a right to life. Many babies born at full gestation are born with a lot of severe handicaps and pain, what makes them any different than this one?

Jillio, you state that this thread is being made on assumptions without any medical facts to back it up. Ok, where are your facts that this baby would NOT have survived and done well if given the treatments? Wouldnt you say that you are also going on assumptions?

What gives anyone the right to decide who lives or who dies? Regardless, of what the odds may be? This baby deserved every chance that they could have given it. And STILL have been made comfortable without any undue pain or torture.
 
Bear said:
Ok here is my two cents on this arguement, whether if wanted or not. As stated earlier the baby could have been made comfortable regardless of whether if it lived or died, no matter what was wrong with this baby it still deserved a right to life. Many babies born at full gestation are born with a lot of severe handicaps and pain, what makes them any different than this one?

Jillio, you state that this thread is being made on assumptions without any medical facts to back it up. Ok, where are your facts that this baby would NOT have survived and done well if given the treatments? Wouldnt you say that you are also going on assumptions?

What gives anyone the right to decide who lives or who dies? Regardless, of what the odds may be? This baby deserved every chance that they could have given it. And STILL have been made comfortable without any undue pain or torture.
Click to expand...

If you'll check back, Bear, I believe I tried to make it clear that none of us have the medical facts. Therefore, none of us should be attempting to second guess the doctors' decisions. That would include me. Until I have the medical facts of the case, or until anyone has the medical facts of the case, no one knows whether the decision these doctors made could have been made differently with different results.
 
And sometimes even medical facts could be wrong Jillio, you and I should both know that all too well. How many people have been misdiagnosed or mistreated for the wrong diseases? Doctors are humans too and do make mistakes. '

I believe a huge mistake was made here! The article states itself that the doctors refused to even see the baby after the mother asked them to. You know as well as I do that if that had happened over here, not only the doctors but the hospital itself would already have a lawsuit against them, and they would all be up on malpractice charges.

I realize that this article is all based on a grieving mother's story, however where is the hospital and doctors statements refuting this story? So far not seeing one is kinda fishy in my books. They have had ample time to speak to their lawyers about what to say to the press and what not to say.

We are either anti-abortion or pro-choice or pro-life, in my opinion anyone that is against an abortion AND condones this practice is a hippocrite.

This is a human life we are talking about, and every human life deserves a chance to live. Even those in pain are usually grateful that they were given a chance to live.
 
Bear said:
And sometimes even medical facts could be wrong Jillio, you and I should both know that all too well. How many people have been misdiagnosed or mistreated for the wrong diseases? Doctors are humans too and do make mistakes. '

I believe a huge mistake was made here! The article states itself that the doctors refused to even see the baby after the mother asked them to. You know as well as I do that if that had happened over here, not only the doctors but the hospital itself would already have a lawsuit against them, and they would all be up on malpractice charges.

I realize that this article is all based on a grieving mother's story, however where is the hospital and doctors statements refuting this story? So far not seeing one is kinda fishy in my books. They have had ample time to speak to their lawyers about what to say to the press and what not to say.

We are either anti-abortion or pro-choice or pro-life, in my opinion anyone that is against an abortion AND condones this practice is a hippocrite.

This is a human life we are talking about, and every human life deserves a chance to live. Even those in pain are usually grateful that they were given a chance to live.
Click to expand...

Yes, medical assessments can be wrong. No one has ever denied that. However, when one looks at the number of medical assessments and decisions made by physicians on a daily basis, one can also say that there are many more correct decisions made on any given day than incorrect ones.

If we don't expect doctors to have the expertise to make these decisions, why is it that we require such extensive education and training, plus licensure, for doctors? They are not only trained to make these decisions, licensure holds them accountable for the decisions they make.

IMO, the doctors and hospitals are showing due restraint in refraining from engaging a a battle of emotion with a grieving mother. It is the ethical thing to do.
 
Bear said:
Ok here is my two cents on this arguement, whether if wanted or not. As stated earlier the baby could have been made comfortable regardless of whether if it lived or died, no matter what was wrong with this baby it still deserved a right to life. Many babies born at full gestation are born with a lot of severe handicaps and pain, what makes them any different than this one?

Jillio, you state that this thread is being made on assumptions without any medical facts to back it up. Ok, where are your facts that this baby would NOT have survived and done well if given the treatments? Wouldnt you say that you are also going on assumptions?

What gives anyone the right to decide who lives or who dies? Regardless, of what the odds may be? This baby deserved every chance that they could have given it. And STILL have been made comfortable without any undue pain or torture.
Click to expand...

Many profoundly handicapped babies are not given heroic measures either. Especially if those handicaps are not compatable with life (like being born too early is).
 
Jillio while everything you say is true, how can we possibly ignore the fact that the doctors absolutely refused to even see the baby at the mother's request?

Who knows, if they had, they may have realized that this baby should be given a chance. Following some guideline just because it is there and legally allows them to get away with this, to me is outright unethical.

We will never change each others opinions, and Im not gonna continue trying. It is just within my opinion, that the hospital would look better if they had made a statement regarding the baby's condition. Not making a statement looks like a case of yes, they did follow the guidelines, and dont care what the public thinks.

We fought and were outraged when they wanted to stop treatment on that woman Terry something or other, as she was in a coma or something, dont quite remember the story.

Why not the same for the babies?

Regardless of whether if someone is compatible with life or not, should we still not try to at least give them a chance at a life, WHILE making them comfortable?

I dont care about the costs involved at all! If we can afford to support some dumb ass like Octomom and send her donations and watch a reality show with her, then we can afford to pay the medical costs for babies such as these.

Current technology may not support them, but we will never develop that technology if we dont try through trial and error.

I know if I had been that mother, even already having two kids at home, I would have liked to have at least seen some effort being made to help my baby. Even if it had still died. At least then I would have known that all efforts were made to give my baby a chance at life. If it didnt live anyways, then I could say to myself that a higher power decided it just wasnt meant to be.

I agree with this mother, it would be hard to find peace not know what may have happened if given a chance.
 
faire_jour said:
Many profoundly handicapped babies are not given heroic measures either. Especially if those handicaps are not compatable with life (like being born too early is).
Click to expand...

At one time a deaf baby wouldnt have been considered compatible with life. Have you thought of that?

There was a time, that if a baby was born deaf, then the doctors would give no measures to help it live, simply because it was deaf. How do you feel about that?
 
Bear said:
At one time a deaf baby wouldnt have been considered compatible with life. Have you thought of that?

There was a time, that if a baby was born deaf, then the doctors would give no measures to help it live, simply because it was deaf. How do you feel about that?
Click to expand...

No. Deafness is in no way, shape, or form is incompatible with life. Where on earth would you get that idea. Do you not know what that term means?
 
faire_jour said:
Many profoundly handicapped babies are not given heroic measures either. Especially if those handicaps are not compatable with life (like being born too early is).
Click to expand...

most of the time, it is because they know if they did live, they would die at a early age anyhow. That they will have to depend on machines for the rest of their life and even with machines, they would die anyhow.

but they don't usually let handicapped baby died if it is healthy in other areas
 
Lighthouse77 said:
most of the time, it is because they know if they did live, they would die at a early age anyhow. That they will have to depend on machines for the rest of their life that even with machines, they would die anyhow.
Click to expand...

Exactly like this baby would have!!
 
faire_jour said:
No. Deafness is in no way, shape, or form is incompatible with life. Where on earth would you get that idea. Do you not know what that term means?
Click to expand...

OFC i do know what it means. I wouldnt be a former nurse or a medical billing and coding student currently if I didnt!. It means that for example, a baby born with no brain is not going to be able to survive no matter what measures were given to it. Satisfied?

Ok, now to move past my intelligence doubts, I can see that a deaf baby being thought of that way bothers you. But there was a point in time when a deaf baby was thought of this way. There was a point in time when a blind baby was thought of this way. There was a point in time when a downs syndrome baby was thought of this way.

Arent you so glad that they STOPPED thinking of these babies this way?

I can see that there are some babies born, such as one without a brain, where no amount of measures being taken would help the baby. However, based upon the fact that this baby managed to survive almost 2 hours on its own, based on the fact that to survive those 2 hours, it had to have functioning lungs *yet needing assistance to keep functioning* and a functioning heart, then this baby deserved a chance.

The thing is, we dont and probably never will know exactly what was wrong or not wrong with this baby. But we do KNOW, that this baby was born apparantly alive and breathing on its own and had a heartbeat. That alone should have been enough to give it at least a fighting chance.

Most of the time, technology is developed through trial and error. As long as the parents are being made aware that the baby may or may not live and are willing to put their babies through this, then I say give them a chance.

Some of the biggest medical breakthroughs were made simply because people were willing to take a chance on even the most riskiest propositions.

They had the means and the way to make that baby as comfortable as possible, WHILE trying to help the baby survive.


Now, I'm going to ask the impossible of all of you. Picture yourselves as that baby being born. Would you have wanted the chance at life? Or would you have wanted to be given up on without being given a chance at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top