Premature baby not allowed to live under G.B. nationalized health care plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was merely a footnote, an interesting one at that, while there are cases of micro-preemies at 21 and 22 weeks that surved and lived in the United States but certainly you will not find a case of those under 22 weeks in G.B. That's a fact if the govt has its way. Again, it's possible to help a 21 weeks (gestation) preemie to survive and grow up.
Amillia Taylor Turns 2! : Growing Your Baby
 
Give it up, kokonut. You weren't successful in your agenda, and you don't have the medical expertise to discuss the variables involved survival of preemies.
 
jillio said:
Give it up, kokonut. You weren't successful in your agenda, and you don't have the medical expertise to discuss the variables involved survival of preemies.
Click to expand...

Why are so concerned that you are willing to personally attack me on every front?

Again, as I stated before this is my personal opinion and I believe the doctors in G.B. were wholly negligent in all this and I blame in part the govt for setting up a policy that made no provisions for those born under 22 weeks (the cut off time). Since growth rates do vary when organs may be able to function (albeit very weakly) enough to survive for the moment. The baby never had a chance to survive because assistence was never offered. That's what I believe. You have the option to disagree if you want but throwing bombs, ad homenims and making personal attacks is not the answer here.
 
kokonut said:
You have the option to disagree if you want but throwing bombs, ad homenims and making personal attacks is not the answer here.
Click to expand...

Repeating the same concept three times in three different wordings in one sentence? Unusual.

While I do agree some members should hold back on making libel-like jokes, the repetitive nature of that sentence is hilarious to me as someone who entertain himself with literary nonsense.
 
Just ephasizing due to the unusualness I find in here by those who can't simply disagree.
 
Kokonut, if you feel strongly about it, why don't you speak to those doctors who allegately let the baby die.
 
kokonut said:
Just ephasizing due to the unusualness I find in here by those who can't simply disagree.
Click to expand...

Usualness is not a word. Nor is ephasizing. Perhaps you meant to say that you are ephasic?
 
jillio said:
Usualness is not a word. Nor is ephasizing. Perhaps you meant to say that you are ephasic?
Click to expand...
I am so going to be flamed for this sarcasm.
Don't be too harsh on him if he doesn't have a spell-checker. I means... deafies can't speak English, right? So how can they even write?! Cut him some slack, since he's hard-of-hearing.
 
souggy said:
Don't be too harsh on him if he doesn't have a spell-checker. I means... deafies can't speak English, right? So how can they even write?! Cut him some slack, since he's hard-of-hearing.
Click to expand...

But he also made the statement: "English is my first language, thank God!" in an earlier thread. Appears he wishes to be held to high standards.
 
jillio said:
But he also made the statement: "English is my first language, thank God!" in an earlier thread. Appears he wishes to be held to high standards.
Click to expand...
It's a sarcasm... wee!
Yes, but even oral deafies can't spell or write!
 
Now you know why I chose "unusualness" instead of other related words.

Synonyms: aberrancy, aberration, anomalism, anomaly, atypicalness, bizarreness, deformity, deviance, deviancy, deviation, eccentricity, exception, flaw, irregularity, oddity, peculiarity, preternaturalness, singularity, strangeness, uncommonness, unnaturalness, unusualness, weirdness
Click to expand...

I stand by my English. You just fell into it.
 
This is what bothers me. He was considered a miscarriage before he was even born, and the doctors had given up on him before he even had a chance.

"...When Sarah went into labour the following Thursday, she was not surprised: she had spent months reading up on her condition, so she fully understood the risk of premature birth and how midwives would manage it.

But when she asked for the baby to be given steroids to strengthen his lungs before birth, the doctors broke the news that they would not be giving him any care because he was classed as a miscarriage.

'I couldn't believe what I was hearing,' says Sarah. 'I asked to be transferred to another hospital and they said that no hospital in the country would help. I felt so powerless; I wanted to get up and walk out but I couldn't move from my bed.

'The paediatricians kept telling me to consider that he'd probably be stillborn and even if he was alive he'd not be properly developed and would be badly disabled. I said I understood the risks and I still wanted them to treat him, but they refused.

'I said "If he's born alive you have to help him," but the doctor just replied "No, we don't. He isn't a baby - until 22 weeks he's a foetus. So we don't have to help."

Then he closed his folder and they all walked out of the room. 'I felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall. Nobody cared for the welfare of my child.'"


Also, how do we know if the doctors were exact about the number of days short of the 23 weeks' limit?

"...Sarah assumed that since her son was breathing and moving, doctors would now help him - clearly he couldn't be considered a miscarried foetus. And he was large for his gestation, measuring 28 cm, the size of a 23-week-old...."

:hmm:
 
DURAY said:
That is the view of Peter Singer, an "ethicist" at Princeton University. He wrote often that all disabled fetus must be removed. the group NotYetDead protested against him in the past. Liberals gushed and applauded when endowed chairs were established for animal rights at Harvard and Yale Law Schools...
Click to expand...

That's right. I'm embarrassed to say Peter Singer is involved in 'animal rights'. He wants to 'raise' animal rights by lowering human ones. It's NOT the way to do it.

I know this is going intirely off topic but I'm not the only person for animal rights that is against Peter Singer. It was on an animal rights website that I first read about his shocking views on the lives of people like myself. They aposed his views naturally and were disapointed that more animal rights activists didn't do so as well.
 
souggy said:
Yet British doctors have made exceptions as well as mentioned by DeafLissa earlier in the thread.

This is not a case of American healthcare versus British healthcare. Find something else to attack.
Click to expand...

No, it's a valid point he is making. The doctors NEVER even looked. They didn't examine him. They decided he should die before he was even born soly due to their rules and regulations.

If other doctors in the UK were human enough to break those regulations that's good for them, but it's still a valid point.

There are also doctors willing to go to jail rather then abort a baby so at least some doctors will follow their concience reather then the rule book.

But since there rule book said no help for under 22 week premmies, and this baby was 21 week and 5 days, Kokunut is right to say that the doctor didn't even look at him and decided his fate prior to birth.

Which is completely unethnical but legal all the same.
 
kokonut said:
:nono:

Again, stop with the personal attacks against AD members. I've stated my opinion. Either you agree to disagree or not.

Poor guy.
Click to expand...

This poster makes a lot of personal attacks. She was like this with me so I just put her on ignore.
 
dreama said:
Which is completely unethnical but legal all the same.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then it's the law-makers, not your healthcare system. The two are separate. The doctors in the United States are not obligated to help micro-premies as well.

It's not the right battleground for an American to be comparing their own future healthcare system with another country's healthcare system based on the abortion laws.
 
Reba said:
Also, how do we know if the doctors were exact about the number of days short of the 23 weeks' limit?

"...Sarah assumed that since her son was breathing and moving, doctors would now help him - clearly he couldn't be considered a miscarried foetus. And he was large for his gestation, measuring 28 cm, the size of a 23-week-old...."

:hmm:
Click to expand...

Good point!
They rejected him soly on legal guidelines.
In this case the legal guide lines are immoral.
A blatent case of ageism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top