Posted on 08/02/2005 7:19:52 PM PDT by CO Gal
So you would prefer her dead? If so please explain the first part of your tag line – not that I understand the second.
Can't do both for some reason?
Prayers sent from TX.
The father is a young man. He may very well marry again. Besides her grandmothers are young enough to help raise her. This child is luckier than most. She is loved and she's wanted. A lot of kids can't say that.
She's not just in a coma, she's flatline brain dead meaning if she wasn't on life support she would surely completely die as natural order works.
My daughters were premies. Not as small as this girl. BUt I will tell you this this is the right thing to do for the baby. In the NICU with my girls were two girls who went home 2 days before us. They were 1lb 15 oz when born. They were in perfect health when released.
So you are saying you think it is better for her to be dead than to be raised without a mother? All this dad did was make sure she got a chance to live.
You've mentioned "natural order" twice in your posts. I assume then if you ever have a heart attack or are in an accident you'd want "natural order" to run its course.
It is the right of the charitable person to give their money as they see fit. It is not our right to tell them they cannot dontate to this cause!
I didn't see anywhere that said the insurance was medicaid or medicare. It is most likely the insurance used was privately paid for by the husband...if so, why then shouldn't he be allowed to collect on it?
Medical technology has reached a point where even preemies this small have a decent chance at normal development. However, if the plan here had been to deliver the baby at this stage, I'd agree that it was unwise, and carried undue risk of doing more harm than good. However, the plan, which wasn't unrealistic, was that the mother could be kept going longer, so as to deliver the baby when it was the point of serious risk for long term problems -- which one might reasonably have assumed would have been the mother's wish. Apparently the mother's condition recently deteriorated, and they had to deliver the baby earlier than planned.
Even if she was on medicaid I would be ok with investing in life. So much of our taxes dollars are spent without giving us a choice on death.
Please, do you: enlighten me.
I would too Cindy...the other poster just seemed to have an issue with it being paid for by others. It looks to me that the father paid a premium for the insurance and was due the right to collect!
Absolutely heartwrenching. Prayers for all in this family.
She evidently was a researcher. Her own insurance may have been providing some coverage.
WOW what a warped opinion. You need prayers more than they do.
Legitimate claim if that is the case too...
I have a real problem when some people would rather have a child (or other innocent) die, just because the cost of treatment might take a fraction of a penny from their own pocket!
Our great grand daughter was 12 weeks early. She is doing great although it will take until she is 3 to catch up growth wise.
According to U.S. law the mother had no right to life should her NOK claim she'd want to die under these circumstances; and the baby wasn't supposed to be human until months later. As it's written, God will not be mocked.
Thanks for the medical prognosis, doctor Kevorkian. But many people are born unhealthy or with complications. And those who are not will inescapably develop health issues and 'complications' at some time in their life. So what?
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.