PDA

View Full Version : baby allowed to die because parents are poor.


spazzhands
05-03-2005, 03:16 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/print_042905_local_babyfight.html

A 5 month old baby has been diagnosed with lukemia. But because the parents are not affluent enough the hospital is going to pull the plug.
Terri Schiivo got huge media attention for being beyond recovery and completly brain-dead. But this baby, a baby that can have its condition treated, and has a whole life ahead of it, gets nothing! No media attention, no protests, no Government legislation!
Is this the actions of a "pro life" government? Or has the Bush administration got all the publicity that they needed from the schiivo case!

What are your opinions...

DarthZeth
05-03-2005, 03:24 PM
Is there someone else out there willing to take care of the baby?

Skyshot
05-03-2005, 03:54 PM
From what I hear, if a couple who could have children wanted to adopt, they would not be able to, because of the sheer demand from less...able couples. So, I suppose yes, DarthZeth.

Also, babies don't get the attention you'd expect because this happens so often. Believe me we (the pro-lifers) are doing what we can about it.

Napoleon98
05-03-2005, 03:58 PM
Sadly this is how a lot of stuff works in this country... One person, for no explainable reason, gets tons of media attention and (if its needed) help, despite the fact that they are actually one in a pool of thousands, possibly millions ofp eople who do the exact same thing/ have the same condition.

And don't completely dismiss them, I'm fairly sure these are the same people whom AOL and someo ther internet based comapny are helping. Apparently they're sending out some email, and they are giving 32 cents (ooohh big spenders) for every 3 people who forward it to 3 more people...I'm however a heartless bastard and promptly deleted it... So i can't see the companies or if its even the same people... but Howard jsut seems familiar.. So they are getting some media help, just not as much as Shiavo.

Mashirosen
05-03-2005, 04:19 PM
I'm fairly sure these are the same people whom AOL and someo ther internet based comapny are helping. Apparently they're sending out some email, and they are giving 32 cents (ooohh big spenders) for every 3 people who forward it to 3 more people...
Wrong kid, but either way, no, they're not (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/medical/arlington.asp).

Krylo
05-03-2005, 04:32 PM
Where in that article does it say the baby is being taken off because of money issues? It says the child is being allowed to die because she doesn't have a chance in hell of surviving and the hospital/doctors feel that leaving her on life support is doing nothing but prolonging the pain and suffering with no chance of recovery.

The title should be: "Baby Allowed to Die Because Doctors Feel Prolonging Child's Pain With No Hope of Recovery is Fucking Mean."

Napoleon98
05-03-2005, 04:56 PM
Mashi- my bad... :/

Krylo- touché

spazzhands
05-04-2005, 11:13 AM
krylo - bugger... sorry.

Yeah, that is mean.

But even so. Keeping Schiivo alive was worth about as much (if not less) as this, at least this child may grow up and be intelligent. why was all the attention on Schiivo? Was it because there was no chance of failure? or are there any other reasons?

Bob The Mercenary
05-04-2005, 11:28 AM
I think part of the reason the Shiavo case was given so much publicity was because of the suspicions surrounding the husband. They were making him out to be a murderer who poisoned his wife to claim an inheritance, all of which was proven false. But, the sheer amount controversy made it a juicy news story.

My dad's a pharmacist and puts up with experiences almost like these daily. He refuses to dispense drugs if you can't pay, no matter how bad the patient might be. But, that's how you run a business. He also does it partly because he can never tell who's an illegal alien with no real coverage or SS#. He's not heartless, it's just the way things are.

h4x.m4g3
05-05-2005, 12:33 AM
I'm not sure exactly how the quote goes but its something to the effect of 'When one person dies, its a tragedy, when a 100 die its a stitistic.' Now-a-days something has to wipe out either millions of people (aids, tsunami, HIV and other STDs) or one person to recieve mass media attention and recognition. Shiavo got attention because it was husband vs. everyone else and their was controversy there, people love controversy. Sadly in this world two loving parents doesn't sell, would John Q. had been a good movie, if he didn't take over the hospital at gunpoint?

Not sure, but it wouldn't have sold.

Dragonsbane
05-05-2005, 11:47 AM
h4x: The quote was from Soviet leader and mass murderer Joseph Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic".

Bob: Personally, Bob, I would probably give someone that medicine if they were in bad enough condition...such as a life-or-death scenario...regardless of whether or not they could pay. However, that would just be so that they could survive long enough for me to call an ambulance. Business is business, but compassion is an admitted weakness of mine. Would you give a starving man food? I would, until he's well enough to get his own...because I don't need them becoming dependant on me.

Of course, if they couldn't pay because they didn't have a job, and needed medicine they couldn't get in order to survive, I would try to help them find one. There has to be something that can be done in a case like this.

[edit] Of course, that's completely irrelevant, as the problem isn't that the parents aren't rich. According to the article, the doctors treating the baby believe that further treatment is futile, other than to ease the child's pain and suffering. In other words, they can't cure her cancer and skin disease, just use up resources prolonging it.

phil_
05-06-2005, 11:39 PM
DB, there's a big difference between giving people food and giving them medication. Bob's dad can't give away meds because people will abuse them. It is common for people addicted to powerful painkillers or other prescription drugs to fake symptoms convincingly in order to get the drugs they need. Well, it's common in ERs, anyway. I'm not so sure about pharmacies, but the same principle (and profit) applies.

Poor kid, but again, the ER horror stories I've heard since infancy keep me from being upset. Some kids just don't survive. Some can't. The doctors are medical professionals; they know what a hopeless case is much better than the parents do (unless the parents are doctors, but odds are they aren't) because the doctors have brought many more kids into the world than the parents have. In a better structured sentence, the doctors made their decision from experience, not from spite for the poor (if the parents even are poor).

Final note: this is getting media coverage. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an article to link to.

Bob The Mercenary
05-07-2005, 08:44 AM
DB: I know where you're coming from. But, my dad is the compassionate of the compassionate. I wasn't really talking about a situation where person A walks in carrying person B who is about to die unless they get pills. I've heard my dad say something like he will refer them to some other business or even the hospital. But, he has taken IOUs before.