How much deformity is enough?
Discussion
Ok, I reckon this thread is subtley different enough from the two that prompted it (and doubling up on threads seems to be de-rigeur tonight).
How badly deformed/unhealthy does a unborn child have to be, before Doctors make the decision and say "This is not a healthy example of our species, it has little chance for survival, if it does it will will have poor quality of life and be an unfair burden on the state. You cant have it Im afraid."
The two-headed baby has to be an example of this? Save for any speculation you want to make about the parents, what are they hoping to achieve? And if they persist with it and the child(ren) dies after 6 mega-expensive months in intensive care, why do I have to pay for it?
If I was the mother/father of a healthy unborn with every chance of survival and there was one tiny little shortfall in the care/service received because resources are being directed to this situation, there'd be a fookin riot.
How badly deformed/unhealthy does a unborn child have to be, before Doctors make the decision and say "This is not a healthy example of our species, it has little chance for survival, if it does it will will have poor quality of life and be an unfair burden on the state. You cant have it Im afraid."
The two-headed baby has to be an example of this? Save for any speculation you want to make about the parents, what are they hoping to achieve? And if they persist with it and the child(ren) dies after 6 mega-expensive months in intensive care, why do I have to pay for it?
If I was the mother/father of a healthy unborn with every chance of survival and there was one tiny little shortfall in the care/service received because resources are being directed to this situation, there'd be a fookin riot.
308mate said:
How badly deformed/unhealthy does a unborn child have to be, before Doctors make the decision and say "This is not a healthy example of our species, it has little chance for survival, if it does it will will have poor quality of life and be an unfair burden on the state. You cant have it Im afraid."
Doctors do not make judgements based on potential "burdens to the state" (and it is only potential burden as you can never be sure of the outcome, cure or quality of life).308mate said:
The two-headed baby has to be an example of this? Save for any speculation you want to make about the parents, what are they hoping to achieve?
Two lots of child benefit? "My Two headed Cherub hell" "Freak's mum puts down Monster Munch to speaks to the Sun from her Lazyboy!" ....
Surely the right to life and rights of the unborn baby also extend to a right to a dignified and painless death?
parakitaMol. said:
308mate said:
How badly deformed/unhealthy does a unborn child have to be, before Doctors make the decision and say "This is not a healthy example of our species, it has little chance for survival, if it does it will will have poor quality of life and be an unfair burden on the state. You cant have it Im afraid."
Doctors do not make judgements based on potential "burdens to the state" (and it is only potential burden as you can never be sure of the outcome, cure or quality of life).Missing a finger - no problem.
Conjoined - well past history shows that its going to be a waste of money and lot of heartache for nothing.
And somewhere in between lies the the point at which its "beyond economic repair".
Really, its a gravy train, lets be honest.
Who would like to bet that if the press werent allowed to pay for a story, this unborn would have been terminated as per the doctors recomendations?
If I was informed of a major disability with an unborn child of mine, I'd have it terminated. That includes mental disorders and anything that would prevent the child leading a normal happy life like any other, such as paralysis, being conjoined or having no legs.
It might seem heartless, but I'd rather adopt a healthy child and give an already living child a good life than introduce and raise one which doesn't lead a full life.
It might seem heartless, but I'd rather adopt a healthy child and give an already living child a good life than introduce and raise one which doesn't lead a full life.
308mate said:
The two-headed baby has to be an example of this? Save for any speculation you want to make about the parents, what are they hoping to achieve? And if they persist with it and the child(ren) dies after 6 mega-expensive months in intensive care, why do I have to pay for it?
Quite. I saw this on the news. The mother seemed rather simple and said it was a 'gift from god'. Not my idea of a gift, but there you go.308mate said:
The two-headed baby has to be an example of this? Save for any speculation you want to make about the parents, what are they hoping to achieve? And if they persist with it and the child(ren) dies after 6 mega-expensive months in intensive care, why do I have to pay for it?
If your child were diagnosed with a terminal disease, cancer say, and had only a 1% chance of survival - would you call it quits? Or would you fight until the last, spending NHS money like there were no tomorrow, in a vain attempt to save the life of your child?Why should I pay for that?
M3CHA-MONK3Y said:
Regarding the thread title, I think having 5 arms and 47 sets of eyelids but only one eye would be considered an adequate amount of deformity.
Of course even this person, with enough deformity, could still acquire a job as a Avon Mascara product tester.
Imagine the noise of 47 sets of eyelids blinking at once!Of course even this person, with enough deformity, could still acquire a job as a Avon Mascara product tester.
(well, I assume 47 eyelids, if the
plasticpig said:
The Sun - fountain of all knowledge said:
"...and they even hope to marry one day."
plasticpig said:
I wonder if they kiss with tongues while it frigs itself.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff