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.
Pearl Joy Brown was born with severe genetic physical and mental defects. Her parents were advised to terminate the pregnancy when an ultrasound revealed these defects, they chose not to do so. Pearl Joy was not expected to survive birth, but she did. She is 11 weeks old and has already received an estimated $1 million of medical care, which has been paid for by Tennessee taxpayers. Pearl Joy will most likely die before her first birthday.
My question is for the many c-d posters who tout "personal responsibility" when it comes to tax payer funded health care assistance: Should the government (tax payers) cover the very high costs of Pearl Joy's medical needs?
The only way that medical science can ever find a cure to the disease that this baby has is to treat the baby , see if there are any clinical trials that the baby can be placed in " and who knows " maybe she/he could be the vessel that a cure is found for this terrible disease.
The only way that medical science can ever find a cure to the disease that this baby has is to treat the baby , see if there are any clinical trials that the baby can be placed in " and who knows " maybe she/he could be the vessel that a cure is found for this terrible disease.
She does not have a disease that can be cured. Her condition is from a genetic anomaly. There is nothing they can learn from treating this child that can be used to prevent genetic mutations.
Any useful information could be gleaned from studying the fetal tissue.
The real issue is a problem with Western society and lack of collective, cohesive thought in terms of responsibility to society. An extreme example is the collective mentality in China, some may call it "herd mentality"...but Chinese parents would not even think of spending social, economic resources on a child with no potential.
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.
The bad thing is that politicians refuse to discuss it or even admit that it happens and is going to happen.
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.
But in that article, there was no extraordinary care ever mentioned -- no organ transplants. Just some oxygen, IVs, some antibiotics, and a feeding tube. Her parents are caring for her at home.
I would agree that this little one shouldn't be first on the list for organ transplants -- but that's actually not even apparently an issue. IVs, oxygen, feeding tubes, occasional antibiotics is nothing special.
Pearl Joy Brown was born with severe genetic physical and mental defects. Her parents were advised to terminate the pregnancy when an ultrasound revealed these defects, they chose not to do so. Pearl Joy was not expected to survive birth, but she did. She is 11 weeks old and has already received an estimated $1 million of medical care, which has been paid for by Tennessee taxpayers. Pearl Joy will most likely die before her first birthday.
My question is for the many c-d posters who tout "personal responsibility" when it comes to tax payer funded health care assistance: Should the government (tax payers) cover the very high costs of Pearl Joy's medical needs?
Well, of course it should...if that's what nature intends. I don't think anyone is advocating euthanasia in this case...at least I'm not. But I don't think the baby should be treated aggressively either. Palliative care only, IMHO.
Pearl Joy Brown was born with severe genetic physical and mental defects. Her parents were advised to terminate the pregnancy when an ultrasound revealed these defects, they chose not to do so. Pearl Joy was not expected to survive birth, but she did. She is 11 weeks old and has already received an estimated $1 million of medical care, which has been paid for by Tennessee taxpayers. Pearl Joy will most likely die before her first birthday.
My question is for the many c-d posters who tout "personal responsibility" when it comes to tax payer funded health care assistance: Should the government (tax payers) cover the very high costs of Pearl Joy's medical needs?
No. It is like spending $1 million on a 90 year old with a 99% mortality.
This is a first deny the child care because we should have killed the child in the first place. Soon the liberal will come for the old and sick in the same manner. All these old sick people would not be costing money if we had aborted them in the first place . How about just cal lit post birth abortions because the Nazis had a similar plan
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.
