Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:30 AM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,338,198 times
Reputation: 2824

Advertisements

Eric and Ruth Brown Accept Daughter Pearl Joy's Illness Holoprosencephaly As 'God's Will'

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:38 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
I do not see these two as being very responsible parents. I would love to simply decide to not work but I opt for paying my bills when they come due.

Nobody is brave enough to broach the subject of what we should pay and what we shouldn't so until then, it's all a moot point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: St. Joseph Area
6,233 posts, read 9,481,332 times
Reputation: 3133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945 View Post
Eric and Ruth Brown Accept Daughter Pearl Joy's Illness Holoprosencephaly As 'God's Will'

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?
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:51 AM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,338,198 times
Reputation: 2824
IMO, this child should never have been born.

However, she was and without non-divine intervention, she would have died at birth. So, again IMO, if the parents were really allowing God to exercise his will, Pearl Joy would no longer be with this world - and Tennessee would have a million dollars more in its coffers to spend on children who actually have a chance for a meaningful life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:52 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,527,236 times
Reputation: 25816
I really do not see how the mother can work with while caring for a child with such a devastating illness. Private nurses cost $$$$$$$$$ too.

I do not see how this child can be denied care either. Certainly pro-lifers cannot deny her care because the parents chose not to abort.

I feel for these parents; a tragic choice to make; and a tiny baby with lots of need, needles, and little hope for much else.

It's a choice I'm glad I never had to make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Does the child ever have a chance of getting out of a hospital bed, ever?

Its not for me to decide for the parent, but if I were them, I wouldn't have ever gotten to the point where this was the situation. Thats torture to do that to a person, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:59 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
I really do not see how the mother can work with while caring for a child with such a devastating illness. Private nurses cost $$$$$$$$$ too.
I wasn't speaking about the mother as far as my statement went. It would appear that the father sells CD's at low turn out concerts. Not a real job for someone with two kids and then quit doing that for at least a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 08:01 AM
 
3,406 posts, read 3,450,301 times
Reputation: 1686
Is the child in pain and suffering? If so it shouldnt be kept alive. ( yes a euthinasia comment) but if it is not suffering let the baby live as long as it can and build memories for its family to last forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 08:03 AM
 
1,403 posts, read 937,455 times
Reputation: 357
No. They decided to keep a baby that was unable to live a normal life they should take full responsibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyForever View Post
No. They decided to keep a baby that was unable to live a normal life they should take full responsibility.

But heres the problem. Lets say their networth, house, savings, 401K, everything is worth a million dollars.

And keeping her alive for 6 months costs more then that if she's in a hospital the full time. So they keep her alive for 3, 4 years. The tax payer, nor the hospital will ever get that money back. Should the "care" plug be pulled when the money runs out? We haven't done that, since 1986.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top