MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on May 22, 2017 14:59:46 GMT -5
I believe Miss T is specifically referencing the doctor that killed special needs babies and then told the parents that the baby had died during birth. I'm equally horrified that he took it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner. My great uncle was born premature but the midwife who delivered him did not murder him and then tell my great grandmother he was still born. She took care of him and he grew into a perfectly healthy person. My grandmother, his sister, has cerebral palsy and you'd never know it unless you pay attention to her left arm. Could it have gone the opposite direction for both of them? Of course it could but a doctor could not have known that the moment they were born. I would be livid if I discovered my doctor killed my child to "save me the pain" of having a disabled child. That is not their call, it's our call as the parents. I will not judge parents for making the decision but I sure as hell will a doctor taking it upon themselves to decide. I do agree that the doctor shouldn't be doing that.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 22, 2017 15:03:40 GMT -5
No. But maybe not spend millions of dollars and take extraordinary measures to keep a 12 ounce baby alive. I'm not disagreeing with that but that is also not actively murdering a baby. But that is also not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was actively murdering an infant and that absolutely horrifies me. I honestly don't know where I truly stand...but I usually stand with there are crueler things than death. If we're not spending millions to save them, are we just giving them pain meds while they slowly suffocate? That seems horrible too.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,370
|
Post by imawino on May 22, 2017 15:07:41 GMT -5
I would say a country like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany or France are first world in my opinion. The issues that make me question whether the U.S. is first world are, mainly; -high income inequality -expensive healthcare that is not accessible to all citizens -insufficient mental health care -expensive education -expensive child care -crumbling infrastructure and lack of access to good public transportation systems -high incarceration rates and for-profit prisons -lack of a good social safety net All these issues could be easily fixed, I believe. The money and the resources are there. So you believe only socialist countries are first world countries? While these countries have elements of socialism (as do we) they are not socialist countries.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 22, 2017 15:07:56 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing with that but that is also not actively murdering a baby. But that is also not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was actively murdering an infant and that absolutely horrifies me. I honestly don't know where I truly stand...but I usually stand with there are crueler things than death. If we're not spending millions to save them, are we just giving them pain meds while they slowly suffocate? That seems horrible too. Why would special needs children slowly suffocate? You are talking about MPL's cousin but I'm not talking about children that would die at birth. I'm talking about the posts in favor of murdering children just because they would have special needs.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,250
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on May 22, 2017 15:10:31 GMT -5
Just wanted to mention that doctors aren't always right about a "soon to be born" child. A close family member of mine was told the child she was carrying had Down Syndrome. After a lot of discussion she & her husband decided to keep the child. And guess what? The child was perfectly fine, so, somehow the diagnosis was a mistake.
In spite of his challenges, I wouldn't trade DS (who has autism) for anyone else's kid. Does he have difficult moments? Yes. But, he's proven to me often that his heart is in the right place. And, he tries SO hard to do things well. I can't even imagine a young man (due to typical attitudes of young men in their late teens & early 20's) who would work as hard as DS does to do things "right".
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 22, 2017 15:13:15 GMT -5
I am the mother of a special needs child and I am completely horrified by what you just said. Miss Tequila, we may not be on the same side of the aisle w.r.t. to politics but I have always admired what both you and countrygirl2 have done for your special needs children. However, we have to admit that there is special needs and special needs. These children don't all come with the same needs and their parents don't come all with the same resourses be it physical/emotional/financial so it does no good for any of us to use that (by me) much hated phrase "if I can do it, anyone can".
I would like to bring up this instance that was discussed years ago here on the boards where a mother took her severly autistic 19yo across state borders into, if I remember correctly Tennessee, and abandoned her. She had tried to get help in her home state for the daughter but none was forthcoming. She had a younger son at home with the same handicap and could not handle the two of them without any help from society. Call me callous, but I truly believe that unless society is willing to actually help out with these children long term, I refuse to condemn statements as those above.
In the mean time I am truly ever more grateful that my sons were born healthy and fly the coop when their time came...
So you are ok with murderig children because the burden is too much for the parents? We aren't talkin abortion. We are talking murdering babies at birth.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 22, 2017 15:16:07 GMT -5
Just wanted to mention that doctors aren't always right about a "soon to be born" child. A close family member of mine was told the child she was carrying had Down Syndrome. After a lot of discussion she & her husband decided to keep the child. And guess what? The child was perfectly fine, so, somehow the diagnosis was a mistake. In spite of his challenges, I wouldn't trade DS (who has autism) for anyone else's kid. Does he have difficult moments? Yes. But, he's proven to me often that his heart is in the right place. And, he tries SO hard to do things well. I can't even imagine a young man (due to typical attitudes of young men in their late teens & early 20's) who would work as hard as DS does to do things "right". Yep...and on the flip side sometimes things like Downs are missed. I used to work with a woman who was 26 when she delivered her son. She didn't have an amnio (don't think anyone that age would) and the ultrasound came back fine. Imagine her surprise when she delivered a baby with downs! He is an absolute delight. Other than some heart problems when he was small he has had no health issues
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,110
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 22, 2017 15:16:49 GMT -5
This would be an interesting debate to include whenever we hear stories about it being ruled that a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment for their child and instead "pray" the illness away even if it can be shown that with treatment the child would survive.
I'll fully admit I can't wrap my brain around how one is not okay but the other is acceptable because it's my "right" as a parent to make life/death decisions for my child.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 22, 2017 15:21:51 GMT -5
This would be an interesting debate to include whenever we hear stories about it being ruled that a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment for their child and instead "pray" the illness away even if it can be shown that with treatment the child would survive. I'll fully admit I can't wrap my brain around how one is not okay but the other is acceptable because it's my "right" as a parent to make life/death decisions for my child. And where do we draw the line? What if your child is born healthy and then is disabled due to some horrible accident? Do we still get to murder them? What if they get addicted to drugs and are draining us financially? Ok to murder them?
|
|
dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on May 22, 2017 15:22:01 GMT -5
I think our problem in general is that unless something directly affects us, we don't want to be bothered funding it. Childless people complaining about school taxes, healthy people complaining about funding programs for addicts/mentally ill... an educated and healthy population is good for ALL of us. But unless the addict is in their family or they have school aged children, nope - let everyone else worry about it. The well-being of our society is EVERYONE'S business. If we have a finite amount of money, we do need to evaluate the programs we fund through taxes to evaluate whether or not they are effective.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on May 22, 2017 15:23:08 GMT -5
No. But maybe not spend millions of dollars and take extraordinary measures to keep a 12 ounce baby alive. I'm not disagreeing with that but that is also not actively murdering a baby. But that is also not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was actively murdering an infant and that absolutely horrifies me. I was also horrified about that, but I did not address it. I ignored it. I was not in any way condoning it. I assume almost everyone looked past it. I don't even think Zib was necessarily condoning it. She just acknowledged it was done in the past.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,110
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 22, 2017 15:24:55 GMT -5
This would be an interesting debate to include whenever we hear stories about it being ruled that a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment for their child and instead "pray" the illness away even if it can be shown that with treatment the child would survive. I'll fully admit I can't wrap my brain around how one is not okay but the other is acceptable because it's my "right" as a parent to make life/death decisions for my child. And where do we draw the line? What if your child is born healthy and then is disabled due to some horrible accident? Do we still get to murder them? What if they get addicted to drugs and are draining us financially? Ok to murder them? IDK. That's the question I always ask when I am told it should be "my" right to pray the illness away instead of seeking life saving medical treatment. Especially when it seems like five minutes ago the exact same person was preaching "right to life" for the unborn.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 22, 2017 15:26:07 GMT -5
And where do we draw the line? What if your child is born healthy and then is disabled due to some horrible accident? Do we still get to murder them? What if they get addicted to drugs and are draining us financially? Ok to murder them? IDK. That's the question I always ask when I am told it should be "my" right to pray the illness away instead of seeking life saving medical treatment. Especially when it seems like five minutes ago the exact same person was preaching "right to life". I don't believe that a parent has the right to withhold medical treatment from their children.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 22, 2017 15:39:14 GMT -5
I honestly don't know where I truly stand...but I usually stand with there are crueler things than death. If we're not spending millions to save them, are we just giving them pain meds while they slowly suffocate? That seems horrible too. Why would special needs children slowly suffocate? You are talking about MPL's cousin but I'm not talking about children that would die at birth. I'm talking about the posts in favor of murdering children just because they would have special needs. No, I was talking about the premies and the millions to save them and without the life support they would die. Not babies that are able to live without life support but are disabled.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,893
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 22, 2017 16:02:40 GMT -5
I think our problem in general is that unless something directly affects us, we don't want to be bothered funding it. Childless people complaining about school taxes, healthy people complaining about funding programs for addicts/mentally ill... an educated and healthy population is good for ALL of us. But unless the addict is in their family or they have school aged children, nope - let everyone else worry about it. The well-being of our society is EVERYONE'S business. If we have a finite amount of money, we do need to evaluate the programs we fund through taxes to evaluate whether or not they are effective.But how do we define effectiveness? I know you deleted part of your original response but my question remains the same: what is effective? If a child with disabilities can be helped to such an extend that it can ultimately live independently that sure is an effective use of our tax money, if a child can live in some sort of guided environment that is effective. But what about the child who will never be able to feed itself? Who will always be 100% dependent on others, are we going to withhold our support from that child because our help won't be "effective"? Or will we withhold help from a child damaged due to the prenatal alcohol/drug abuse by its parent? Do we help the person who got hurt in a car crash that was not their fault but not when they are at fault? How about all the permanent (extreme) sports injuries?
There are no easy answers to these problems but we must face them and deal with them compassionately, and not only if and when the person affected is a member of our family/friend circle. This is a must for our society or we will be truly, honestly, and fairly, judged as less than a first world nation
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 22, 2017 16:03:34 GMT -5
Why would special needs children slowly suffocate? You are talking about MPL's cousin but I'm not talking about children that would die at birth. I'm talking about the posts in favor of murdering children just because they would have special needs. No, I was talking about the premies and the millions to save them and without the life support they would die. Not babies that are able to live without life support but are disabled. Gotcha. Yes, I'm replying to zib and Pats posts, not MPL.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on May 22, 2017 16:25:53 GMT -5
You can't always tell a special needs child at birth. Then what? My Godfather was a doctor in a small town and he used to kill babies that weren't right when they were born and tell the family and mother that the child was born dead. Felt it was a blessing for the family. I'll bet he wasn't the only doctor that did this. Good God...he murdered children and thought it was a blessing? That was the thinking. He didn't want to burden the families. This was a long time ago.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on May 22, 2017 16:35:42 GMT -5
He also helped the terminally ill in pain go sooner. This was how a lot of medicine was practiced then. He wasn't alone he just talked about it whereas others didn't. I'm not saying every doctor did this but he was the only doctor in a small town in Massachusetts. He birthed everyone and when he died he left enough money to the town to build a hospital. Something like 5 million dollars which back then was enough to build a small one. I think he felt personally involved with all the townspeople's lives. We are talking many decades ago when medicine was different. A lot of these babies and children didn't live long anyway because the medical care wasn't like it is now.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on May 22, 2017 16:59:30 GMT -5
IDK. That's the question I always ask when I am told it should be "my" right to pray the illness away instead of seeking life saving medical treatment. Especially when it seems like five minutes ago the exact same person was preaching "right to life". I don't believe that a parent has the right to withhold medical treatment from their children. I agree, if it is something like insulin for a diabetic child, but if it is cancer and there has been a long series of unsuccessful treatments, then I think we should allow parents to make a decision in the "best interests" of their children and trust that those decisions are in the child's best interests.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on May 22, 2017 17:16:21 GMT -5
I worry more about DS's girlfriend who keeps talking about having kids. She's at least 36 and DS is almost 34 so you have old eggs and old sperm. If she gets pregnant I'll have to really zip my lips. Hopefully she gets whatever tests are available and fingers crossed there are no mistakes. In my years of teaching kids with special needs there have been two intact couples parenting. All the fathers left. I'd hate for DS to do the same thing. And if the men are such assholes to abandon their children and wife when she needs him most, I say good riddance! He was an asshole to begin with. I agree but it is what it is.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 22, 2017 17:23:01 GMT -5
I believe Miss T is specifically referencing the doctor that killed special needs babies and then told the parents that the baby had died during birth. I'm equally horrified that he took it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner. My great uncle was born premature but the midwife who delivered him did not murder him and then tell my great grandmother he was still born. She took care of him and he grew into a perfectly healthy person. My grandmother, his sister, has cerebral palsy and you'd never know it unless you pay attention to her left arm. Could it have gone the opposite direction for both of them? Of course it could but a doctor could not have known that the moment they were born. Especially in the 1930's when they were born. I would be livid if I discovered my doctor killed my child to "save me the pain" of having a disabled child. That is not their call, it's our call as the parents. I will not judge parents for making the decision but I sure as hell will a doctor taking it upon themselves to decide. Parents may have the right to decide on extraordinary measures or not, but no one is "allowed " to kill a baby breathing on their own.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on May 22, 2017 17:31:46 GMT -5
Yes, and Country Girl has said that she is very concerned that the care/assistance her daughter gets will not continue to be available. She had her placed in a group home, but felt the care she was getting there was substandard. Giramoma is unexpectedly expecting in her early 40's and is afraid she will have a special needs child and the Republicans will change the pre-existing conditions coverage and the child may end up uninsurable. Making a decision to terminate a pregnancy due to potential complications for Mother or Child is difficult enough, it just seems wrong to add in the stress of will I have adequate insurance coverage if there are any complications.
And I am sorry, but if you listen to the trials some of our members with special needs family members go through with the current level of support, even the current level is not adequate.
In Wisconsin and in most of the country the needs of Mentally Ill adults are mostly ignored. We have been under Court order in Milwaukee to provide group home living for Mentally Ill adults but in something like 30 years, we haven't made any significant moves to meet the needs of this population (hint it's about the $$). It's easier for lawmakers to just give lip service to meeting the needs of the population than to actually design a program that would do that.
I have listened. We emptied institutions under court orders to send the mentally ill who were not dangerous back to their families and their communities. The truth is that they weren't really wanted by either. Every time a group home is proposed, the neighbors attend the zoning meetings and say, "Not in my community!" It's not an easy problem to solve. Much like education, money isn't the entire answer. But even if it was, social services have to be paid for. How much are you willing to pay in taxes for these services? Is 40% of your income off the top too much? 50%? It won't be cheap, and you will be paying for some services that you won't directly use much as you pay for schools whether your kids go to private school or not. Is that ok? On a more "amusing" note, according to the source I linked, most mental health services aren't covered in Norway. It has to be something like autism. Depression is too common because of the lack of sunlight. I am not sure if the mentally ill are allowed to refuse treatment in other countries. Here we say it is their constitutional right to refuse treatment. If they want to live on the street and dumpster dive for food that is their right. In WI they can hold a patient for 3 days, then the law says they must be discharged unless you get a court order saying they are incompetent. It is nearly impossible to get a court order. When the supreme court limited the time hospitals could hold a mentally ill patient, it was with the understanding patients would be releases to group homes. There are virtually no group homes and no long term beds available. You will be released to live on the street if a family member does not take you. But many of there patients are violent and families are just not equipped to deal with them.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 17,542
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 22, 2017 17:39:46 GMT -5
To correct a statement about SSDI. DD got $300 a month for a long long time because no one explained she could get more because no one tells you anything and all we were concerned about was her losing Medicaid, because there was no coverage available. In her 20's or 30's a caseworker finally told me to say she contributed to the household so she got $600 plus a month until I retired. Tell me how that take will take care of them? If I had to work would have been in trouble quick no care available for her and no way for me to work, what then?
I lost my job taking care of her and mom so I took SS at 62, mine is very poor because of when I had to quit, way early in my working years. But she went on mine then and got half of what I would have gotten at full retirement only a small amount more per month.
DH and I talked and one of the reasons he worked for so long is she got half of his when he retired, it was his full amount and she will get 3/4s of his when he dies, but we think it is only of the amount at age 66. I will get a reduced amount when he retires because I retired early. If you think there is enough money to care for her out of it wrong. We are hoping VA continues funding and if it will then we THINK, not for certain that it will pay for assisted living. And yes we are absolutely dependent on Medicaid for her medical care. Out of her SS we pay for glasses, dental, and everything else concerning her care, it does not always cover it though many times it does.
She is only allowed to keep $2k so we have a trust and will likely cause all kind of issues when its finally funded at our deaths, its a special needs trust to supply her with extras, she will likely never get.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 17,542
|
Post by countrygirl2 on May 22, 2017 17:43:38 GMT -5
We have a renter that works at a prison and he said 3/4's he would say at the institution where he works has mental issues that led them into crime, only about a 1/4 were hard core criminals. He said they don't really belong there but we don't have any provisions or treatment for them. That is the sad situation for our mentally ill. So yep birth them but don't care for them or the disabled. Horrible situation.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,250
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on May 22, 2017 17:48:39 GMT -5
We don't do enough for the mentally ill in our state, either. We've pretty much got the same rules: they can hold you for 3 days, but afterwards there are limits on what can be done, unless someone with mental illness breaks the law. I get it that in the past it was too easy to commit someone, but now, it seems the rules are much too loose, at least when it comes to public safety.
Back to the earlier topic of who decides when a child needs care. I do NOT approve of either hospitals, nor the government, deciding when to terminate care on anyone. Either the patient, doctor & family must all agree on terminating care, or no deal.
|
|
dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on May 22, 2017 18:11:04 GMT -5
If we have a finite amount of money, we do need to evaluate the programs we fund through taxes to evaluate whether or not they are effective.But how do we define effectiveness? I know you deleted part of your original response but my question remains the same: what is effective? If a child with disabilities can be helped to such an extend that it can ultimately live independently that sure is an effective use of our tax money, if a child can live in some sort of guided environment that is effective. But what about the child who will never be able to feed itself? Who will always be 100% dependent on others, are we going to withhold our support from that child because our help won't be "effective"? Or will we withhold help from a child damaged due to the prenatal alcohol/drug abuse by its parent? Do we help the person who got hurt in a car crash that was not their fault but not when they are at fault? How about all the permanent (extreme) sports injuries?
There are no easy answers to these problems but we must face them and deal with them compassionately, and not only if and when the person affected is a member of our family/friend circle. This is a must for our society or we will be truly, honestly, and fairly, judged as less than a first world nation
I did not purposely delete the post. I forgot to quote MJ, so my post continued her comment, but the edit evaporated. By effective I meant: Are the child's needs met or enriched because of the supplemental support? I did not say we should not help the disabled or sick who cannot make contributions because of their limitations. The gist of the post was we have programs to help addicts and curtail the sale of illegal drugs, but most of them are not working. Thus the suggestion to evaluate the effectiveness of how those programs are structured. Welfare is an example of a program that should be structured differently ( except in extreme cases where someone is too ill or disabled to work). Welfare should be a short-term solution not a lifetime solution for recipients. I agree we must have compassion, but we also need the money to fund the programs.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 22, 2017 18:32:16 GMT -5
I believe Miss T is specifically referencing the doctor that killed special needs babies and then told the parents that the baby had died during birth. I'm equally horrified that he took it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner. My great uncle was born premature but the midwife who delivered him did not murder him and then tell my great grandmother he was still born. She took care of him and he grew into a perfectly healthy person. My grandmother, his sister, has cerebral palsy and you'd never know it unless you pay attention to her left arm. Could it have gone the opposite direction for both of them? Of course it could but a doctor could not have known that the moment they were born. Especially in the 1930's when they were born. I would be livid if I discovered my doctor killed my child to "save me the pain" of having a disabled child. That is not their call, it's our call as the parents. I will not judge parents for making the decision but I sure as hell will a doctor taking it upon themselves to decide. You won't judge parents for making the decision to murder their child because he/she is disabled? That's not really even your call as parents...that's murder...kind of against the law. This was a child that was actually born.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 22, 2017 18:42:30 GMT -5
We don't do enough for the mentally ill in our state, either. We've pretty much got the same rules: they can hold you for 3 days, but afterwards there are limits on what can be done, unless someone with mental illness breaks the law. I get it that in the past it was too easy to commit someone, but now, it seems the rules are much too loose, at least when it comes to public safety. Back to the earlier topic of who decides when a child needs care. I do NOT approve of either hospitals, nor the government, deciding when to terminate care on anyone. Either the patient, doctor & family must all agree on terminating care, or no deal. All the countries Ava listed as first world have socialized medicine and part of the way that costs are contained are to make decisions about who gets care and when to limit care based on how long the person would otherwise live, what quality of life they'd have, whether they'd contribute, etc.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,110
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 22, 2017 18:57:18 GMT -5
I believe Miss T is specifically referencing the doctor that killed special needs babies and then told the parents that the baby had died during birth. I'm equally horrified that he took it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner. My great uncle was born premature but the midwife who delivered him did not murder him and then tell my great grandmother he was still born. She took care of him and he grew into a perfectly healthy person. My grandmother, his sister, has cerebral palsy and you'd never know it unless you pay attention to her left arm. Could it have gone the opposite direction for both of them? Of course it could but a doctor could not have known that the moment they were born. Especially in the 1930's when they were born. I would be livid if I discovered my doctor killed my child to "save me the pain" of having a disabled child. That is not their call, it's our call as the parents. I will not judge parents for making the decision but I sure as hell will a doctor taking it upon themselves to decide. You won't judge parents for making the decision to murder their child because he/she is disabled? That's not really even your call as parents...that's murder...kind of against the law. This was a child that was actually born. My mistake. I meant terminate the pregnancy. I was trying to be careful and not type the word that will get the thread locked.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 22, 2017 19:09:32 GMT -5
I believe Miss T is specifically referencing the doctor that killed special needs babies and then told the parents that the baby had died during birth. I'm equally horrified that he took it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner. My great uncle was born premature but the midwife who delivered him did not murder him and then tell my great grandmother he was still born. She took care of him and he grew into a perfectly healthy person. My grandmother, his sister, has cerebral palsy and you'd never know it unless you pay attention to her left arm. Could it have gone the opposite direction for both of them? Of course it could but a doctor could not have known that the moment they were born. Especially in the 1930's when they were born. I would be livid if I discovered my doctor killed my child to "save me the pain" of having a disabled child. That is not their call, it's our call as the parents. I will not judge parents for making the decision but I sure as hell will a doctor taking it upon themselves to decide. You won't judge parents for making the decision to murder their child because he/she is disabled? That's not really even your call as parents...that's murder...kind of against the law. This was a child that was actually born. Exactly! I guess when the religious right claim that abortion is a slippery slope, they weren't wrong. People on here advocating or "not judging" the killing of babies. I don't understand the world I live in
|
|