Nice Planet 2011

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

To me, it sounds like the parents were saying, "Oh, our kid isn't normal, so since we can't kill him, we'll just take the 3 million. Thanks!"

Because when the kid is taken to see his doctor, it's important that he arrive in a limited edition Range Rover. And to make certain he's on time to those appointments, both his mother and father will require solid gold Rolexes. And they'll be needing a bigger house to properly tend to his needs. And a summer home.

 

[Almington]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

To me, it sounds like the parents were saying, "Oh, our kid isn't normal, so since we can't kill him, we'll just take the 3 million. Thanks!"

To be fair, tending to the needs of a child with Downs does come with additional cost and we have no way of knowing how the money will be spent. I think that it is just as likely that the judge orders the money placed in a trust to be used to cover the future health and care expenses of the child as opposed to giving it directly to the parents. It isn't far to assume and expect that the parents will just frivolously squander the money.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

To be fair, tending to the needs of a child with Downs does come with additional cost and we have no way of knowing how the money will be spent. I think that it is just as likely that the judge orders the money placed in a trust to be used to cover the future health and care expenses of the child as opposed to giving it directly to the parents. It isn't far to assume and expect that the parents will just frivolously squander the money.

Neither is it fair to assume they're humanitarians, interested only in the welfare of their kid. There's no real evidence either way.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Lengthy, but worth a look:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y4MnpzG5Sqc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

To be fair, tending to the needs of a child with Downs does come with additional cost and we have no way of knowing how the money will be spent. I think that it is just as likely that the judge orders the money placed in a trust to be used to cover the future health and care expenses of the child as opposed to giving it directly to the parents. It isn't far to assume and expect that the parents will just frivolously squander the money.

I have a hard time passing judgement on the $ thing. It does cost sig amount to care for a child with Downs esp if it is severe (cardiac issues, GI issues, etc). I don't see that as money grabbing but a way to provide for the child. They have 2 other children to provide for and having a child with those medical needs will suck you dry even if you have good coverage. You still have to pay for the intangibles like losing time out of work for multiple medical appointments, handling when the child is sick (happens way more withthese kids) etd.

I do have a problem with them saying they would abort the child. Even if that was my inner thought I don't think I would tell the world.

Also-I would be shocked if the consent they signed didn't say that no test is 100%. They all have that as a standard.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Meanwhile, in Waukegan, IL, a very resourceful crook has been screwing "the system" for years. Waukegan, by the way, was the home of Jack Benny.

http://www.suntimes.com/11172101-41...house-about-to-smoke-crack-when-arrested.html

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I have a hard time passing judgement on the $ thing. It does cost sig amount to care for a child with Downs esp if it is severe (cardiac issues, GI issues, etc). I don't see that as money grabbing but a way to provide for the child. They have 2 other children to provide for and having a child with those medical needs will suck you dry even if you have good coverage. You still have to pay for the intangibles like losing time out of work for multiple medical appointments, handling when the child is sick (happens way more withthese kids) etd.

I do have a problem with them saying they would abort the child. Even if that was my inner thought I don't think I would tell the world.

Also-I would be shocked if the consent they signed didn't say that no test is 100%. They all have that as a standard.

Personally, I am against abortion, but if someone is for it, fine. I am really bothered by the sentiment that I interpreted from this couple, where if the baby was "normal" they would have it, and if not, they would abort it. WTeFF? That is so wrong, pro-choice or not, it makes me sick.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Personally, I am against abortion, but if someone is for it, fine. I am really bothered by the sentiment that I interpreted from this couple, where if the baby was "normal" they would have it, and if not, they would abort it. WTeFF? That is so wrong, pro-choice or not, it makes me sick.

I personally haven't seen anyone make a cold-blooded decision to 'just abort it'. If that is the way this couple is then yea that bothers me and I think it is sick but we only have the reporters words and not the context.

I don't think I could make that choice but we are both seeing this in an abstract way, we aren't in it and what we think we would decide doesn't affect our lives. I used to be much more rigid in my thinking but unfortunately I have seen couples agonize over the decision. Chosing to have a child with multiple medical issues has a lot of ramifications that one would not usually consider. For those who have to consider it the thought of caregiving can be so overwhelming they do not feel capable of the task. Fortunately I have only seen the decision to abort a very few times and that was when the Mum was having issues and it was felt the child was not going to develop in a way to sustain life.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I personally haven't seen anyone make a cold-blooded decision to 'just abort it'. If that is the way this couple is then yea that bothers me and I think it is sick but we only have the reporters words and not the context.

I don't think I could make that choice but we are both seeing this in an abstract way, we aren't in it and what we think we would decide doesn't affect our lives. I used to be much more rigid in my thinking but unfortunately I have seen couples agonize over the decision. Chosing to have a child with multiple medical issues has a lot of ramifications that one would not usually consider. For those who have to consider it the thought of caregiving can be so overwhelming they do not feel capable of the task. Fortunately I have only seen the decision to abort a very few times and that was when the Mum was having issues and it was felt the child was not going to develop in a way to sustain life.

Had a cousin that had severe CP, honestly, she was pretty much a moving vegetable (I know that sounds incredibly crass, I don't mean it that way, just trying to explain how bad it was), an inlaw with Down's, and another cousin that had some sort of general retardation (don't really know much about him, so I hesitate to guess/ask what his condition is).

Never have the families questioned their decision to have these children. They were all far from God-fearing, but they accepted the situation, knowing how difficult it would be. Why? Because they are still people. They deserve life.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Had a cousin that had severe CP, honestly, she was pretty much a moving vegetable (I know that sounds incredibly crass, I don't mean it that way, just trying to explain how bad it was), an inlaw with Down's, and another cousin that had some sort of general retardation (don't really know much about him, so I hesitate to guess/ask what his condition is).

Never have the families questioned their decision to have these children. They were all far from God-fearing, but they accepted the situation, knowing how difficult it would be. Why? Because they are still people. They deserve life.

But should it matter if someone aborts for reason A or B if you agree there should be a choice? If you feel it should legally be a choice you have to take the evil with the less evil do you not?

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

But should it matter if someone aborts for reason A or B if you agree there should be a choice? If you feel it should legally be a choice you have to take the evil with the less evil do you not?

I don't agree there should be a choice, however*. BUT, if someone else feels that way, it's such a hot-button issue that there will be no minds changed.

*Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control (this case being an example of that), should be allowed in cases of incest/rape or the birth creating a possible health complication for the mother.

 

[duper]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

It isn't far to assume and expect that the parents will just frivolously squander the money.

Neither is it fair to assume they're humanitarians, interested only in the welfare of their kid. There's no real evidence either way.

This gets at the heart of the issue. After all, this is a news article, which is a called a story for a reason. In order to be effective it needs to be entertaining first. Complete is a distant second. Accurate is probably third (as long as it isn't actual openly incorrect). Of course, I'm showing my own cynicism here. (And for the record, I am not pitting these two statements against each other. I am agreeing with them as a compound statement. Or something.)

it's such a hot-button issue that there will be no minds changed.

And here's the other heart of the issue.

Regardless of opinion, this whole situation is just awful.

 

[unofan]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

where if the baby was "normal" they would have it, and if not, they would abort it. WTeFF? That is so wrong, pro-choice or not, it makes me sick.

Meh, I don't. On the flip side of the argument, I've seen familes where their "normal" kids get screwed because the parents attention and every familial resource has to focus on the "special" kid. For as much as the parents love their "special" child, they also look worn down, beat up, and constantly depressed. These same parents also love to play the martyr with everyone else, to the point where they become defined by being the parent of a special kid. I specifically remember some talk-radio segment where the host asked the hypothetical, "if you could make your disabled kid "normal" tomorrow, would you?" - and at least a few who called in said no, regardless of the disability. Now that's just as selfish as a parent who chooses to abort the child, IMO.

I'm not saying it's an easy decision or one that is universally right or wrong in all situations. But I don't think it's immoral to end a pregnancy when it is known there will be significent genetic issues. The parents can always try again, depending on the specific genetic issue at play. And yes, I suppose everyone's definition of "significent" will differ slightly, but such is life.

 

[UncleRay]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

If they don't want the child, they can put it up for adoption, as there are people who will take, and love, a disabled child. If they want to keep the child, then they are money-grubbing.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Had a cousin that had severe CP, honestly, she was pretty much a moving vegetable (I know that sounds incredibly crass, I don't mean it that way, just trying to explain how bad it was), an inlaw with Down's, and another cousin that had some sort of general retardation (don't really know much about him, so I hesitate to guess/ask what his condition is).

Never have the families questioned their decision to have these children. They were all far from God-fearing, but they accepted the situation, knowing how difficult it would be. Why? Because they are still people. They deserve life.

I don't think the people I have seen have made the decision because they are God fearing. Again, I don't think it is a decision I would make but I respect the person's ability to know what they can and cannot handle.

The other thing that is not mentioned is that many people believe they are saving the baby from a life that will consist of pain and suffering (even if it is emotional) in the attempt to keep the child, who before mod medicine would have died fairly quickly, alive. Once that child is born every time a decision is made to not treat the issues get more complex. Do you not treat and the child suffers? Do you treat and the child suffers with the treatment. This is the stuff that medical ethicists have fits about and have no right answers to. This is why I have a hard time judging that others have made a wrong decision.

If they don't want the child, they can put it up for adoption, as there are people who will take, and love, a disabled child. If they want to keep the child, then they are money-grubbing.

Most children can be adopted but not all. Don't know the stats but I think a fair number are wards of the state because a normal family can't afford the expense.

The money grubbing thing is way off the mark. I don't think they have a case because consent usually says it isn't 100%. I don't, for one minute think they should win but-- This couple appears to have cared for and loved the child despite the medical problem. 3M is not going to get them to Disney every yr. It is going to make sure the child is set and cared for through the lifespan. I noticed there isn't a mention of what the medical expenses are for the child but most kids with Downs have ongoing medical issues. They aren't just cute piefaced little kids who are a little slow. Many of them need multiple medical interventions, medical appointments and that isn't even counting all the stuff that isn't medical like making sure they have care after the parents are gone.

There are a variety of other health conditions that are often seen in people who have Down syndrome, including:
Congenital heart disease
Hearing problems
Intestinal problems, such as blocked small bowel or esophagus
Celiac disease
Eye problems, such as cataracts
Thyroid dysfunctions
Skeletal problems
Dementia—similar to Alzheimer’s.

link to a simple overview: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Down_Syndrome.cfm

 

[geezer]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I specifically remember some talk-radio segment where the host asked the hypothetical, "if you could make your disabled kid "normal" tomorrow, would you?" - and at least a few who called in said no, regardless of the disability. Now that's just as selfish as a parent who chooses to abort the child, IMO.

You could be misinterpreting their motives. There's this whole "Indigo Children" movement (I don't know, but I feel like it's loosely based in Buddhism or something like) where the "victims" (in Western culture) are thought to be specially blessed because of their innocence and happiness and close connection to the world of the angels or whatever. I guess these would most often be autistic kids but I can see Downs kids being thought of in the same way.

 

[duper]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I don't think the people I have seen have made the decision because they are God fearing. Again, I don't think it is a decision I would make but I respect the person's ability to know what they can and cannot handle.

The other thing that is not mentioned is that many people believe they are saving the baby from a life that will consist of pain and suffering (even if it is emotional) in the attempt to keep the child, who before mod medicine would have died fairly quickly, alive. Once that child is born every time a decision is made to not treat the issues get more complex. Do you not treat and the child suffers? Do you treat and the child suffers with the treatment. This is the stuff that medical ethicists have fits about and have no right answers to. This is why I have a hard time judging that others have made a wrong decision.

Most children can be adopted but not all. Don't know the stats but I think a fair number are wards of the state because a normal family can't afford the expense.

The money grubbing thing is way off the mark. I don't think they have a case because consent usually says it isn't 100%. I don't, for one minute think they should win but-- This couple appears to have cared for and loved the child despite the medical problem. 3M is not going to get them to Disney every yr. It is going to make sure the child is set and cared for through the lifespan. I noticed there isn't a mention of what the medical expenses are for the child but most kids with Downs have ongoing medical issues. They aren't just cute piefaced little kids who are a little slow. Many of them need multiple medical interventions, medical appointments and that isn't even counting all the stuff that isn't medical like making sure they have care after the parents are gone.

link to a simple overview: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Down_Syndrome.cfm

The $3 million in the article was an estimate of lifetime medical expenses above and beyond that of someone born healthy.

 

[geezer]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Wow. Here's an "abortion" we can all agree needs to get done. The gray area is wider than I thought.

 

[SteveP]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Why should I tolerate poor service or REWARD bad service with a tip? It happens once every few years, far from a common or regular occurrence. It's not like I'm expecting bad service when I go out, most of the time the service is completely acceptable given how busy the place is, on rare occasions it isn't and that is reflected in the tip (much of the time it is more a question of if I round up or down to the nearest dollar (for example: do I leave $29, $30, or $31 on the $25.54 bill). I don't think any of us are advocating leaving a 1% or even 5% tip as a matter of general practice.

I know that I'm late to the tipping discussion, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents about what happened a week ago while at the ACHA National Tournament in suburban Cleveland.

We joined about 30 Penn State parents and fans at a Buffalo Wild Wings (pre-arranged seating) for a post-game meal. The orders were screwed up (at least two weren't delivered), the food was awful (cold ribs and greasy wings with some orange glop that was supposed to be Buffalo sauce) and no utensils. A half dozen "servers" could figure out who got the food that was delivered.

Because we were a group, the "obligatory" 18% gratuity was added to all of our bills. We all paid, but I made sure to speak with the manager to let him know that I will tip for good food and service, but we got neither that night.

Frankly, I don't know why BWW is such a popular chain. I've been in three of them and all of them had the worst wings I've ever eaten. Mama Teressa must be spinning in her grave.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Frankly, I don't know why BWW is such a popular chain. I've been in three of them and all of them had the worst wings I've ever eaten. Mama Teressa must be spinning in her grave.

They're cheap.

I will also never leave a bad tip if the food isn't good (cold is another matter). The servers don't make the food.