Discussion in 'USMB Breaking News' started by task0778, Jul 28, 2017.
RIP little guy. You touched a lot of hearts during your time with us.
Like it or not, a human life has an economic value, and there will always be times when it is appropriate to stop the efforts to artificially extend the term of a life and let nature take its course. Although this particular little kid had funding in place, spending it to extend his value-less life would be a travesty. Take that money and do a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.
No expense or sacrifice is too great for the people who don't have to pay it.
Exactly what I thought. Prohibit people from spending their money on their health care. Confiscate it and spend it how the government sees fit.
I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it but "value-less" life? Wouldn't hurt to gain a little sensitivity.
Otherwise, what we see here is indeed a question for our society. Cost vs benefit is a hard reality, we do not have unlimited funds/resources, and while it seems inhumane to deny a baby every chance to live, there is also the other side of the coin. Which is what could we have done instead with that money? Was there no chance, or almost no change for the baby? Was he suffering? I wouldn't want my last days to be like his was, suffering or not; there's a difference between living and existing.
It's their money. They can have a bonfire in the parking lot with it.
What could WE have done with that money? Who is WE? Do you propose some sort of civil forfeiture so the government can steal it?
Nominated for dumbass post of the day. Who the hell do you think I'm talking about? WE as in WE Americans as in OUR SOCIETY. As for civil forfeiture, what the eff are you talking about? I'm not talking about the money that Charlie Hurd's parents got for him in donations, I'm talking about most people in OUR SOCIETY who don't have any money or nowhere near enough for that kind of treatment. I don't give a shit about anybody with a few million dollars or more to pay their own medical bills, I'm referring to everybody else.
The sad thing is that you are serious in what you say. You suggest that even if the parents had the funds to treat the child you suggest the money would be better spent on “a couple thousand immunizations, or feed the hungry, or find shelter for some homeless people.”
Since the money was donated what gives you or anyone else the right to tell the parents how to spend it? Now I am going to ask you a question: If your child was suffering from a terminal illness but there was some hope that the child could be saved and you had the funds to pay all costs would you do everything in your power to save the child or would you prefer to donate the money to charity? I already know the answer you hypocritical numb-skull.
In a just and fair world, the parents would have been allowed to try any course of treatment that held out the smallest glimmer of hope for their child. Even a one-in-a -million chance of survival is far better than certain death, especially when someone you love is at risk.
Now let me tell you something that I know about you: during your lifetime you have acquired possessions you didn't really need to meet your basic survival needs; during your lifetime you spent money on things simply because they gave you pleasure; during your lifetime, you often ate and drank more than you really needed to; and during all this lifetime of excess and waste you didn't give a royal damn about the unimmunized, the hungry and the homeless. You were unwilling to give up non-essential pleasures to help the unimmunized, the hungry and the homeless, yet in your self-righteous arrogance you condemn parents who preferred to save the life of their child than to assist others who are not facing death.
I sincerely hope no one you love ever suffers from a life-threatening illness with little chance of survival; however, if it happens I also hope that you are given every opportunity under the sun to explore any treatment options available even those which are untested as long as they offer some promise of success.
Correct it's their money, but when it runs out (or they choose to stop spending it), who turns off the switch? The parents? The taxpayers? A state designated executioner?
The British government spent a small fortune keeping little Charlie on life support for a year. Would an American insurance company have authorized the level of care that this baby received, given his prognosis?
If you think they would, I have a ski resort in Miami I would like to sell you.
Once the family said they were paying, the government should have no further interest in the child. Once the family said they were paying out of pocket, an American Insurance company would not have stopped them from receiving the care they paid for.
Under socialized medicine scientific innovation is frowned upon. That's the take away from this. No experimentation, no new treatments, no medical advancement. Why? Because the very sick might live and under socialized medicine the savings occurs only when people die.
Separate names with a comma.