Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And what happened to the sanctity of life? Perhaps we should pay them to have abortions. Sure would be a lot cheaper.
Able bodied people can work to support their offspring. It shouldn't be a choice between paying them to breed or paying them to have abortions. You conceive a child, you should not have it murdered but it also shouldn't win you life long welfare.
My answer is no. No, the taxpayers should not fund this baby's care.
Why, you ask?
Because this baby is going to die. Even if she survives childhood, she will be so severely mentally retarded (don't know what the latest PC term for this is, so bear with me) that she will require constant care and supervision. School for her would be like free day care, not a place to learn and be enriched.
Personally I think the money spent on her care would be better spent on grief counseling and psychotherapy for the parents and their other two children.
That's just me, though.
Every one of us is going to die.
I didn't see in the article what part of the care she's getting is so extreme, the parents are caring for her at home. Do we remove feeding tubes from everyone using a feeding tube? Do we deny everyone antibiotics? IVs?
Maybe the real problem is the incredible cost of health care where one hip replacement with a 3 day hospital stay ends up costing $100,000. The problem with Obamacare, it doesn't do anything about the high costs. It just forces some people to buy costly insurance even if they're healthy.
And at what IQ do we start cutting people off? Do we euthanize or deny all care to everyone under 70 IQ? Or maybe under 100? What's extraordinary measures? Feeding tubes shouldn't be viewed as extraordinary. Nor are IV's, and antibiotics are not. One problem with medicine today though is that a lot that once was extraordinary now is common. Most babies that spend any time in an ICN will have very high hospital bills.
I didn't see in the article what part of the care she's getting is so extreme, the parents are caring for her at home. Do we remove feeding tubes from everyone using a feeding tube? Do we deny everyone antibiotics? IVs?
Maybe the real problem is the incredible cost of health care where one hip replacement with a 3 day hospital stay ends up costing $100,000. The problem with Obamacare, it doesn't do anything about the high costs. It just forces some people to buy costly insurance even if they're healthy.
And at what IQ do we start cutting people off? Do we euthanize or deny all care to everyone under 70 IQ? Or maybe under 100? What's extraordinary measures? Feeding tubes shouldn't be viewed as extraordinary. Nor are IV's, and antibiotics are not. One problem with medicine today though is that a lot that once was extraordinary now is common. Most babies that spend any time in an ICN will have very high hospital bills.
I'm not a big fan of Obamacare either; I want the U.S. to go to a universal, single-payer system.
However, healthcare dollars are not unlimited whether it is being funded privately or publicly, and sometimes hard decisions should be made. That's all.
I'm not a big fan of Obamacare either; I want the U.S. to go to a universal, single-payer system.
However, healthcare dollars are not unlimited whether it is being funded privately or publicly, and sometimes hard decisions should be made. That's all.
The thing is, at times they are now. We already have "death panels".
And at what IQ do we start cutting people off? Do we euthanize or deny all care to everyone under 70 IQ? Or maybe under 100?
Just for clarification, this child is probably severely, if not profoundly mentally disabled. If she is severe her IQ is under 35-40, if profound under 20-25. Some severe people can engage in limited self-care and communication with a lot of intervention, training, and monitoring. Profoundly mentally disabled can rarely, if ever, even do that much. Big difference than the mildly mentally disabled (IQ between 50-70) who can, with proper intervention, education, and training, be self-sufficient.
No, euthanasia shouldn't ever be an option but there are times when limiting heroic care should be considered. I would never want the one making that call but at some point, as callous as it sounds, it has to be decided whether the massive use of limited resources for a limited outcome is justfied.
The thing is, at times they are now. We already have "death panels".
Is that such a bad thing, though?
Say like you have a person in their 90s who requires a heart transplant. Do you give it to them when you have a list of thousands of people with many more years ahead of them?
Say like you have another elderly patient who has had a stroke and is comatose or has dementia and is terminally ill. Their family says 'do all you can' but all you are doing is prolonging the inevitable, wasting time and money and a hospital bed, on repeatedly flogging a patient who has no hope for a meaningful recovery. Do you keep doing it?
Say like you have a baby who has a genetic abnormality that is 100% fatal before the age of 5. Do you go above and beyond to save its life if it gets into distress, or do you let nature take its course?
Personally, I am not in favor of wasting time and money treating patients who have no hope of recovering.
My guess is that you won't get many responses because so many would say "yes, this baby should just die" but won't actually come right out and say it, but if you oppose health care for all, by default you end up supporting--no, advocating--the deaths of people like this, whether consciously or not. So sad.
I have the complete opposite take on this situation. The ethical dilemma does not come in the form of what the parents should or should not have decided regarding this birth, nor should that ethical burden be offloaded onto the public to decide whether to fund the enormous costs of such an effort. The first violation of ethical conduct comes from forcing charity from the public at the barrel of a gun by government. Without that forced funding, then it would be a matter up to the parents and the medical establishment to work out the proper course of action between them, for their specific case, AS IT SHOULD BE.
In the case of a no-hope situation such as this ... and each case must be decided based on it's own unique circumstances (which precludes a universal rule or law), the trauma inflicted on the little baby through the use of extraordinary measures and procedures which can only delay the inevitable for a very brief period, holds as much of an ethical-moral dilemma as a decision not to engage such measures. In fact, I contend that it is the more ethical and moral stance to not engage invasive treatments in such cases, regardless of available funding. The idea that medical treatment decisions should even consider the financial element in the first place is a clear sign moral-ethical bankruptcy. Furthermore, just because something can be done, doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do.
The Hippocratic Oath commands that the first consideration is to do no harm. In that regard, the medical establishment has failed miserably over the years, in direct proportion to the advancements in technology, and the profit to which this generates. The reality is, there is no point to maintaining a life in a vegetative state indefinitely simply because the technology now allows it .... nor in preserving a newborn's life who has no chance of reaching their 1st birthday. The only legitimate considerations should come in the assessment of quality of life potential, as measured against the invasiveness of the treatments ... and that decision is a moral issue best left to the family, with ethical guidance from their physicians.
Such decisions are made countless times each day with the issuance of DNR orders ... and these types of decisions must come from those entrusted with authority to protect the best interests of the patient.
I'm not a big fan of Obamacare either; I want the U.S. to go to a universal, single-payer system.
However, healthcare dollars are not unlimited whether it is being funded privately or publicly, and sometimes hard decisions should be made. That's all.
The "single payer" system is the correct one ... and that single payer should be the person receiving medical treatment!
You see, this really isn't difficult, if only people would use their heads and think for 5 seconds. The astronomical costs of health care these days was created and made possible by the establishment of health care insurance. It's in fact a ponzi scheme, or a pyramid scheme in which a constant flow of new payers must be brought in to keep the funds pool filled ... and the larger that pool of funds, the higher those costs will escalate to tap that revenue source, and then the resulting increase in premiums to keep that cycle going. Without that pool of funds, few individuals would be able to afford even basic care as it is currently priced, and therefore would require costs to come way down, and maintain affordable levels for which the average person could reasonably manage.
Let me explain it this way .. Apple Corp is in the business of making money .. not providing a public service. They price their iPhone at $599 because that is what they have determined to be and acceptable and affordable price point for maximizing sales and profits. Believe me, if Apple thought they could charge $1599 for that phone without losing massive amounts of sales for being priced too high ... they would .. guaranteed. But let government mandate that everyone must have an iPhone ... even those that cannot afford them (@ 599), and an insurance scheme was established in which everyone paid a monthly rate and was issued an iPhone ... it wouldn't take long for that phone to be priced at $1599 ... then $1899 ... then $2499.
With medical care, there is an enormous chain of profit centers from doctors and nurses, to hospitals, medical supplies and medical equipment, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, malpractice insurance, Universities ... etc. And the larger that pool of money made available ... the greater the costs for everything from cotton swabs to medical school tuition, and everything in between.
From a pure $ perspective, lets say there are 100 Million families with health care insurance, and the average premium is $600 per month. That creates a 60 Billion dollar pool of funds each month, 720 Billion each year. You can increase that pool of 720 Billion to 830 Billion by simply raising those $600 premiums by 15% .... resulting in an annual increase of 108 Billion dollars. Add another 15%, and the pool expands to over a Trillion. And so on. And all you need to do is raise prices of medical care, and the system automatically adjusts up ... so the average family will ultimately absorb the costs .. and with Obama Care and the forced inclusion of 30 Million more on the books of the insured, those rates will adjust up and up and up because then, no one will be able to simply drop out because of too high costs .. the law requires that they absorb the increases. Under this scenario, rates will increase to obscene levels in no time.
Make a law requiring everyone to have a 60" flat screen TV and Direct TV service ... and that $1200 set and that $79 per month service fee would jump three+ fold in no time at all. That TV would cost $3600, and the cable bill would be $350.
This is just common sense , people. Demanding Obama Care is like saying "please beat me and abuse me", because that's exactly what is going to happen.
Ask yourself a simple question ... would the Ford Motor Co., Ford Dealerships nationwide, Ford Salesmen, Ford mechanics be in favor of a law that required every American to own a Ford? And do you think the price of Fords would go down or up? Keep in mind that one of the reasons why Fords cost what they do today is because you the car buyer have other options other than Fords, to include not buying a freaking car of any type.
You can be both pro-life and rational about when to not use extraordinary medical care.
Do you believe the government should pay for heart transplants for 90 year olds?
There is nothing rational about being anti-choice to begin with. As for the issue of heart transplant for a 90-year old, that decision should be left to a doctor who doesn't stand to benefit from it one way or the other (hence in a better position to offer a logical response). Not you. Not I. Not my neighbor. Not yours. Not the government. Not a do-gooder running a church, a mosque, a temple. And certainly not a politician.
The "single payer" system is the correct one ... and that single payer should be the person receiving medical treatment!
You see, this really isn't difficult...
In utopia it must be the norm. It is impractical and a non-sense deflection in the reality that is this nation's health care system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
