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.
Why can't you approach it from ANY other angle such as the birth defect the baby has affects more than one organ or the typical life expectancy for this baby would be measured in months regardless of a hear transplant or not? Do you know the facts?
How would you feel if the heart of your deceased infant was transplanted into a recipient whose life expectancy was a known quantity regardless of a transplant and was measured in mere months? Would you be O.K./ with that or would you prefer to think of your dead infants heart out their beating strongly while the recipient is attending university and studying to be a doctor?
Had you read the article you would have seen that specialist in the child's condition stated the condition would not cause a problem like the transplant doctor's were claiming as justification for denial.
If you read the article, the doctor's decisions was based upon a genetic condition. Their thinking in simplest terms is since the baby is genetically defective, we'll stop treating the defective baby so he'll die sooner. This is Eugenics which was the inspiration for Nazi Germany's policies regarding healthcare and other aspects of society. Continue to hide behind the "Godwin" dismissive insult instead of recognizing that some of the worst aspects of history are repeating itself.
Eugenics are of British invention via the Galton Institute.
Sad story. One that has been played out forever though and certainly not a new thing.
That's correct. And proper. For the same reasons who don't keep giving new livers to raging alcoholics (or shouldn't anyway). The organ being transplanted needs the best chance of surviving. Everyone forgets the organ in the sea of human drama and emotion.
No offense Ceece but that's a horrible analogy. This baby is not engaging in self-destructive behavior.
They went to NewYork–Presbyterian and Boston Children's Hospital - both teaching hospitals - as if that makes a difference in donor heart availability.
Sigh, it's not like there is a wealth of infant hearts readily available. As another poster stated there are excellent protocols in place to determine who gets what and have worked for a long time until the fiasco with the child needing transplant and going to the media and the court to get one and utilized not one but two transplants.
For those of you who think the protocols should be changed fine, work to that end but these are not the "death panels" some seem to want to portray.
Health care has made many advances but replacement parts are still rare and need to go to the one who is the best match based on a stringent set of protocols.
If you read the article, the doctor's decisions was based upon a genetic condition. Their thinking in simplest terms is since the baby is genetically defective, we'll stop treating the defective baby so he'll die sooner. This is Eugenics which was the inspiration for Nazi Germany's policies regarding healthcare and other aspects of society. Continue to hide behind the "Godwin" dismissive insult instead of recognizing that some of the worst aspects of history are repeating itself.
Eugenics is not the reason, even though the end result may be the same. Lets say you have a baby, completely healthy other than needing a heart transplant, a heart becomes available and goes to a baby with a small chance of survival. Is it fair? Hearts available for transplant are very limited, so doctors have to base their decision on which baby has a better chance of survival, it sucks, but until we can grow a new heart in a lab and freeze it for later use, this is how it will be. These decisions cannot be based on the parents emotion.
This is what happens under Obamacare's Hitler inspired, euthanasia death panels. Obama has this toddler's blood on his hands.
Nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act, nothing to do with Obama. The article, if you had read it, cites studies and reports from 2008 and 1995, which, unless I am misinformed, were before President Obama was elected.
Oops--I shouldn't have said that this story has nothing to do with President Obama. It does. It's his Department of Health and Human Services that is handling the discrimination complaint the family has filed.
Sad, very sad. I'm not going to pretend to have any answers.
But ~ cue the 'death panels' in one, two, three . . . .
you see r=Ringo, it isnt the "Death Panels" existance with government run healthcare that is the problem.
The problem is, that when the government is in charge, there is no one to appeal to.
Right now, these families have a recourse in going to thier government to resolve disputes with insurance companies, with transplant boards etc.
but when the government is in charge, and the government makes a decision, there is NO higher authority providing oversight to insure people are protected from such wrongs.
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.
