Posted on 03/21/2009 7:51:22 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
Easy!
Why bother to treat people with cancer?
I'm just taking your logic further ... let em die.
As more is known about cancer, more people are surviving cancer but not all do. That's where God comes it. Some will survive cancer and some will not. The same is true of this situation. BTW cancer treatment is VERY expensive. Right now, we don't have age, gender or ethnicity distinctions ... under Obama care modeled after the U.K. those factors influence the COURT decision. If this is acceptable to you, then you favor Obama “care”. We don't. Stay healthy or you could be a muffled "court" case against your wishes to live.
The Brit gov't is playing God. Any means to keep a soul alive outside of its own power can be considered artificial. CPR is artificial.
Just remember that the next time you pop that antibiotic in yor mouth......
Just my two cents, the poor child had no hope of ever living a normal life. If a machine was the only thing keeping him alive, he wasn’t living to begin with.
Not to mention the pain the child was in having his body FORCED to go through the processes that cause no pain to normal human being.
Prayers for this family. May the Lord have mercy on them.
See and that is where we get into trouble... what exactly is a “normal” life. Once you pose this question, you cannot withdraw it.... “normal” can mean MANY things to MANY people.... you may not lead a “normal” life if you are not blond haired and blue eyed.... you may not lead a “normal” life if you are not (a/an) ___________ (insert here)
I vote that the worst analogy I've read in months.
The baby has already taken his last breath. The machine took over AFTER his last breath.
You do get one vote....
Is giving penicillin to someone with a bacterial infection playing God? Is giving someone a kidney transplant playing God? Is giving all forms of medical treatments to the individuals who need them, playing God?
Let’s all go back into the cave, and draw pictures of bison on the walls.
[See and that is where we get into trouble... what exactly is a “normal” life.]
Well, apparently in Britain it is when the doctors (and court) feel it has purpose. From the article;
“Doctors treating him had said the boy’s life was intolerable and his disability was such that his life had little purpose.”
Of course, then we are in trouble again. What exactly is purpose and how is it defined. Under Obama care, I’d expect a liberal life to have purpose and a conservative life to not have purpose. How very Hilteresque.
Trust me, it is not biologically normal for a body to be made to function on a respirator.
The child in question was kept alive. Now study that for a minute, “kept” alive.
If your line of reasoning was correct, then the body would be incapable of functioning with a respirator. Thousands of people are “kept” alive everyday.... maybe you should study your own statement... they are kept alive through CPR, antibiotics, artifical organs, kidney dialysis, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, blood pressure medications, the list is endless. Just because some treatments are acute in nature and others are chronic in nature does not diminsh there effects on sustaining life. There is a bigger picture here.... who decides what “normal” is, who decides whose life is important to save and whose is not.....do we give the government the power to make these decisions out of concern for the “common” good or do we leave it in the hands of the individual?
I would say that by putting him on the ventilator was the main problem here which no doubt was done with the best intentions by the medical staff whilst they fully assessed the situation but maybe it put false hopes in the parent’s minds which lead to the court case.
I am all for putting a baby on a ventilator after an op or if the lungs are not properly developed but with medication can be and it is considered that in the future the baby has a chance of breathing on his own but it seems that was unlikely in this case.
My father was on a ventilator after his op back in November but thankfully in his case he was weaned off after about 48 hours and the second time it was done breathed sufficiently on his own and now back home with me.
“but it seems that was unlikely in this case.”
And that’s what some folks don’t want to hear or see!
Glad your dad is home!! I know how stressful having a parent in the hospital is!
There have been more of recent times I believe certain regulations/law changes happened in the late 80s early 90s as I had a friend who worked in the NHS in the 90s and I remember her telling us when she was forced to take out personal liability insurance in case she was sued at the time I believe she was advised to take it out for a minimum of a million pounds.
I have read of quite a few out of court without prejuise type settlements and in one case I believe a family did get over a million pounds for long term care of a child damaged due to negligence.
Here are a few links regarding claims and settlements
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7054249.stm
Quote from the second link
“· In 2006-07, 5,426 claims of clinical negligence and 3,293 claims of non-clinical negligence against NHS bodies were received by the NHSLA. This compares with 5,697 claims of clinical negligence and 3,497 claims of non-clinical negligence in 2005-06.
· £579.3 million was paid out in connection with clinical negligence claims in 2006-07. This figure includes both damages paid to patients and the legal costs borne by the NHS.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.