2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

[Tiggsy]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

If its you I'm pulling the plug! To answer your question however a newborn in critical need should be treated to the best of the hospital's ability provided the parents are also in agreement. This is no different than a choice older Americans have to make to take somebody off of life support (who has not already made their wished known beforehand). Now there are a thousand hypotheticals that people can and I'm sure will come up with, but that's the basics.

So if the parents don't agree, a newborn in critical condition shouldn't be treated? You might want to rethink that one. Any doctor who believes that is in a serious ethics violation and should lose their license immediately.

 

[Rover]

So if the parents don't agree, a newborn in critical condition shouldn't be treated? You might want to rethink that one. Any doctor who believes that is in a serious ethics violation and should lose their license immediately.

You may have set a new speed record in straw man argument construction! Please step forward to the podium and collect your prize.

What I believe is using extraordinary measures to keep say a brain dead person alive no matter how old the minor is rests with the parents or guardian's decision. Its their child suffering after all. Obviously you wouldn't allow people to prevent care for something curable but you can't force people to take extreme and extraordinary measures that they don't want to do. Again, for a bunch of anti-govt libertarians as everybody on the right seems to want to call themselves now I'm not sure where this newfound love of govt influence is coming from.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

So if the parents don't agree, a newborn in critical condition shouldn't be treated? You might want to rethink that one. Any doctor who believes that is in a serious ethics violation and should lose their license immediately.

Did you mean if mom and dad disagree with the doctor about treatment or mom and dad disagree with each other?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Did you mean if mom and dad disagree with the doctor about treatment or mom and dad disagree with each other?

Yes.

Ah, but does the person's BFF not matter?

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

You may have set a new speed record in straw man argument construction! Please set forward to the podium and collect your prize.

What I believe is using extraordinary measures to keep say a brain dead person alive no matter how old the minor is rests with the parents or guardian's decision. Its their child suffering after all. Obviously you wouldn't allow people to prevent care for something curable but you can't force people to take extreme and extraordinary measures that they don't want to do. Again, for a bunch of anti-govt libertarians as everybody on the right seems to want to call themselves now I'm not sure where this newfound love of govt influence is coming from.

What are you babbling about? I simply repeated your words and pointed out how you should rethink them. You have already changed what you originally said. You are going down a slippery slope here and I won't comment any more after this because I've let myself get dragged in too far. Critical condition implies trauma. Ask anyone. If a newborn is experiencing trauma, doctors better do every thing they can to treat the person, newborn or not, regardless of what the parents think. Any decisions on long term care/treatment can be made once the condition has stabilized. Remember parents being brought up on neglect charges because they were scientologists and didn't want to treat their kids? Yes, it happened.

So feel free to take your insults, knuckledragger comments, or outright cheap shots and hurl them toward me now because that's always what happens here. Enjoy.

 

[Rover]

What are you babbling about? I simply repeated your words and pointed out how you should rethink them. You have already changed what you originally said. You are going down a slippery slope here and I won't comment any more after this because I've let myself get dragged in too far. Critical condition implies trauma. Ask anyone. If a newborn is experiencing trauma, doctors better do every thing they can to treat the person, newborn or not, regardless of what the parents think. Any decisions on long term care/treatment can be made once the condition has stabilized. Remember parents being brought up on neglect charges because they were scientologists and didn't want to treat their kids? Yes, it happened.

So feel free to take your insults, knuckledragger comments, or outright cheap shots and hurl them toward me now because that's always what happens here. Enjoy.

I appreciate your attempt to claim victimhood, but I think its a little premature. I'm not disagreeing that people should be treated. I'm talking about extreme cases where people can't breathe, eat, have brain damage, etc. If you have to be kept alive by machines and have no consciousness of your own, it can be up to whoever has legal guardianship of you (parents most likely for a minor) to make the decision on whether or not to continue that extreme care. Their wishes take precedence. With certain religions, there have been some cases where treatable diseases in minors don't get any attention, and a child who could have been saved dies. In those cases yes I think there's a duty to act. Not when the condition is as extreme as I've described however.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

a newborn in critical need should be treated to the best of the hospital's ability provided the parents are also in agreement.

It's probably mean-spirited, but I can't help feeling gleeful when I get an "accidently honest" answer like this from someone who is usually so adept at moving goalposts around and similar tricks. It's very revealing. I invite everyone to read it again.

 

[Rover]

It's probably mean-spirited, but I can't help feeling gleeful when I get an "accidently honest" answer like this from someone who is usually so adept at moving goalposts around and similar tricks. It's very revealing. I invite everyone to read it again.

Ummm...okay...

Reading geezer's posts is like reading the Zippy comic strip. Its like, are we supposed to 'get it' or is not getting it really the point.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Ummm...okay...

Reading geezer's posts is like reading the Zippy comic strip. Its like, are we supposed to 'get it' or is not getting it really the point.

Some of us actually get it.

Reading Grover's rebuttals is like the old saying about a poker table. If you look around and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.

 

[Rover]

Some of us actually get it.

Reading Grover's rebuttals is like the old saying about a poker table. If you look around and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.

I'm fairly certain people can figure out who the sucker is when playing poker with you Flaggy, and I doubt they'd need a mirror.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I'm fairly certain people can figure out who the sucker is when playing poker with you Flaggy, and I doubt they'd need a mirror.

You forget when I went to college, and any associated successes.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Hey look. Republicans did something right. (At least "enough" of them did) but I have no doubts they'll still be able to collaborate with the Senate to ensure that Archer-Daniels-Midland gets their perks while some of the little guys get stepped on.

 

[Rover]

Hey look. Republicans did something right. (At least "enough" of them did) but I have no doubts they'll still be able to collaborate with the Senate to ensure that Archer-Daniels-Midland gets their perks while some of the little guys get stepped on.

Stranger things have happened! Cutting those AG subsidies should be priority #1.

Beyond that though, does anybody know why The Boner still has his job? As bad as Useless Harry Reid is, its usually not his own party that's screwing him. Take a hike and put somebody in place that actually commands respect amongst the rank and file. If the House was like the Mafia, our orange skinned friend would have taken two in the hat a long time ago.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Stranger things have happened! Cutting those AG subsidies should be priority #1.

Beyond that though, does anybody know why The Boner still has his job? As bad as Useless Harry Reid is, its usually not his own party that's screwing him. Take a hike and put somebody in place that actually commands respect amongst the rank and file. If the House was like the Mafia, our orange skinned friend would have taken two in the hat a long time ago.

For someone who supposedly is a right-wing-watcher, they missed the part about the knucks being disappointed with him and looking to replace him.

 

[Rover]

For someone who supposedly is a right-wing-watcher, they missed the part about the knucks being disappointed with him and looking to replace him.

Talk is cheap and 5 knucks not liking The Boner doesn't cut it. He's still got his job hasn't he?

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Stranger things have happened! Cutting those AG subsidies should be priority #1.

Beyond that though, does anybody know why The Boner still has his job? As bad as Useless Harry Reid is, its usually not his own party that's screwing him. Take a hike and put somebody in place that actually commands respect amongst the rank and file. If the House was like the Mafia, our orange skinned friend would have taken two in the hat a long time ago.

I can't believe he wasn't replaced last time...really regrettable decision by the Rs

 

[Rover]

I can't believe he wasn't replaced last time...really regrettable decision by the Rs

And its not like I expect him to be replaced with a flaming liberal, but just somebody who can make a deal and have it stick. Either the guy's the leader or he isn't. There's not a lot of gray area in that job.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I can't believe he wasn't replaced last time...really regrettable decision by the Rs

They had another idea, but couldn't let Pelosi win the vote.

 

[BassAle]

So if the parents don't agree, a newborn in critical condition shouldn't be treated? You might want to rethink that one. Any doctor who believes that is in a serious ethics violation and should lose their license immediately.

People choose to end treatment for children, spouses, or parents all the time.

I've been in that situation. Apparently you haven't. I hope if I live to an old age and terminally ill my son has the sense not to keep me alive for months prolonging my suffering and increasing healthcare costs for others.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

People choose to end treatment for children, spouses, or parents all the time.

I've been in that situation. Apparently you haven't. I hope if I live to an old age and terminally ill my son has the sense not to keep me alive for months prolonging my suffering and increasing healthcare costs for others.

You make a really good point with the end of life planning. I myself draw a distinction between someone able to form their own philosophy and a newborn or a fetus. An adult can make a plan, inform their kids and doctors, and then reaches that point at end of life. Go ahead and pull that plug, take pills, use a rope, it doesn't bother me. The baby never had the capacity to seek out that option and if they were not aborted, might not end up agreeing with everything their parents think is "best for them."