Religions > Atheism > Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2006 09:40:46 PM |
| Object: |
Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10259/CWA/life/index.htm
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Doctors in England have the power to decide the fate of 2-year-old Charlotte
Wyatt, who is brain-damaged, despite her parents' wishes to keep her on life
support.
The February 24 ruling of Mr. Justice Hedley in the Family Division of the
High Court gives doctors the authority to allow baby Charlotte to die if
they deem it in her best interests. The belief that Charlotte is on a
"downward rather than an upward trend," along with her development of a
serious chest infection, is the basis of the decision.
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October 7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then, in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he ruled
against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on October 21,
2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift: Hedley removed
the do-not-resuscitate order.
Charlotte has proven that she can overcome this "downward" trend. Before the
October 2005 ruling stating she should always be resuscitated, doctors said
her life was so intolerable they should be allowed to withhold treatment.
Now, that the do-not-resuscitate order has again been lifted, the decision
is back in the hands of doctors.
"The judge's ruling should not surprise people," said Wendy Wright,
President of Concerned Women for America. "Society is eager to continually
redefine what constitutes precious life. The lives of unborn babies are
ended daily, and the subscription by more and more people to the idea that
the end justifies the means may finally be catching up with us."
Charlotte's parents, Darren and Debbie Wyatt, are forced to fight a battle
no parents should ever have to fight. The struggle for proper medical
treatment for their innocent child began after Charlotte's premature birth
on October 21, 2003. After her birth she had episodes of cardio-respiratory
failure. The episodes were initially treated with the breathing machine and
medication until the judge ruled to no longer resuscitate. This began the
battle for her right to life.
The back and forth ruling of the judge makes one wonder what factor
determines whether someone's life is worth fighting for. Charlotte,
according to doctors, is on a "downward rather than an upward trend," and
that somehow forfeits her right to be resuscitated. Most people don't need
medical attention unless something is wrong, and now doctors are allowed to
turn their backs on those who need them most.
It appears that Charlotte is willing to fight for her own life. According to
BBC News on March 1, "The St Mary's Hospital spokeswoman said: 'She remains
stable but has shown encouraging early signs of improvement. We are pleased.
'"
--
" The truth shall set you free "
.
|
|
| User: "HotelCharlieOne" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 10:13:49 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:su6dnRIwashSnZDZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Calling Benny Hinn, Calling Benny Hinn. You services are greatly needed
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are gone. The America of our founders
is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
06 Mar 2006 11:13:14 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 12:49:13 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440d166a$0$58053$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
--
What do my spending habits ( which you have no clue about ) have to do with
a court agreeing to "pull the plug" on this poor child. Obviously you
haven't been reading the articles I've posted about 'irreversable' comas
that reversed. You're argument is irrelevant to the topic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 01:06:38 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:P8-dnfh82vNksZDZRVn-gQ@giganews.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440d166a$0$58053$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
--
What do my spending habits ( which you have no clue about ) have to do
with
a court agreeing to "pull the plug" on this poor child. Obviously you
haven't been reading the articles I've posted about 'irreversable' comas
that reversed. You're argument is irrelevant to the topic.
The child is the property of its parents. No Court or person other than the
parents have a right to end the life of this child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 02:53:16 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
The child is the property of its parents. No Court or person other than the
parents have a right to end the life of this child.
Under your logic, since the child is the "property" of the parents, the
parents could kill the kid whenever they wanted, say 5 years from now
-- and no Court or person other than the parents would have a right to
prevent that.
Don't you ever *think*?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 11:22:18 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
What do my spending habits ( which you have no clue about ) have to do with
a court agreeing to "pull the plug" on this poor child.
The hospital doesn't want to pay, you don't want to pay, none of your
anti-choice cohorts want to pay, and so the hospital wants to pull the
plug.
You want to steal other people's freedom and money so that you can
have what you want without paying for it.
Obviously you
haven't been reading the articles I've posted about 'irreversable' comas
that reversed.
Like Terri Shaivo's?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 03:42:00 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440d166a$0$58053$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
--
What do my spending habits ( which you have no clue about ) have to do with
a court agreeing to "pull the plug" on this poor child. Obviously you
haven't been reading the articles I've posted about 'irreversable' comas
that reversed. You're argument is irrelevant to the topic.
It's only because they have no argument and they know this. So in order
to try to shift the issue, they need to find another angle. Fischer
and the rest of them know they have no argument. Do they ever?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 09:08:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1141724520.894617.166580@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440d166a$0$58053$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
--
What do my spending habits ( which you have no clue about ) have to do with
a court agreeing to "pull the plug" on this poor child. Obviously you
haven't been reading the articles I've posted about 'irreversable' comas
that reversed. You're argument is irrelevant to the topic.
It's only because they have no argument and they know this. So in order
to try to shift the issue, they need to find another angle. Fischer
and the rest of them know they have no argument. Do they ever?
Was that your idea of an argument?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 11:22:34 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440d166a$0$58053$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
--
What do my spending habits ( which you have no clue about ) have to do with
a court agreeing to "pull the plug" on this poor child. Obviously you
haven't been reading the articles I've posted about 'irreversable' comas
that reversed. You're argument is irrelevant to the topic.
It's only because they have no argument and they know this.
How much did you offer to pay?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 10:08:00 AM |
|
|
osprey LIED:
my
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in
box 18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT
OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en
"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 01:05:55 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440d166a$0$58053$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
Seems to me the doctors want to free up another bed in what they perceive to
be a virtually hopeless case.
I am sure there isn't much charity going to this case from the for-profit
medical establishment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 11:24:06 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
Seems to me the doctors want to free up another bed in what they perceive to
be a virtually hopeless case.
Hospital care is expensive: If the child is in an ICU then the cost is
running about $10,000 per day.
They don't want to pay that much money for a hopeless case.
Do you?
I am sure there isn't much charity going to this case from the for-profit
medical establishment.
Certainly none from you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 03:40:59 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because you don't think her life is worth anything. You don't want to
spend any of your money because you're too greedy.
Are you willing to contribute if a fund is started?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 10:06:58 AM |
|
|
osprey LIED:
fund
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in
box 18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT
OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en
"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tartarus Sanctus" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 01:08:46 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10259/CWA/life/index.htm
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because it costs too much.
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 01:07:36 PM |
|
|
"Tartarus Sanctus" <Tartarus@vatican.it> wrote in message
news:440d317b@nntp.zianet.com...
J Young wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10259/CWA/life/index.htm
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because it costs too much.
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
08 Mar 2006 12:42:46 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Tartarus Sanctus" <Tartarus@vatican.it> wrote in message
news:440d317b@nntp.zianet.com...
J Young wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10259/CWA/life/index.htm
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because it costs too much.
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
I guess that's why you routinely demand to be paid, when someone asks you to
actually back up your mumblings with fact.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (SO) (March 7)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, March 9 vs. Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
08 Mar 2006 05:29:14 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr75dwi6x.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Tartarus Sanctus" <Tartarus@vatican.it> wrote in message
news:440d317b@nntp.zianet.com...
J Young wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10259/CWA/life/index.htm
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because it costs too much.
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
I guess that's why you routinely demand to be paid, when someone asks you
to
actually back up your mumblings with fact.
I demand to be paid because it is required by law and statute and by the
practices of the oligarchial thinktank.
If I am not paid then they render themselves guilty.
So far, they have rendered themselves guilty in more than one case.
I also know that it is they who are seen to be the lovers of money as they
make themselves into hypocrites and inept nonfulfilling deficients as they
refuse to pay me the required sums.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
08 Mar 2006 12:42:00 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr75dwi6x.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Tartarus Sanctus" <Tartarus@vatican.it> wrote in message
news:440d317b@nntp.zianet.com...
J Young wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10259/CWA/life/index.htm
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because it costs too much.
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
I guess that's why you routinely demand to be paid, when someone asks you
to actually back up your mumblings with fact.
I demand to be paid because it is required by law and statute and by the
practices of the oligarchial thinktank.
Pure Wentzky *****. It's not required by statute, unless you are employed.
You refuse to provide any proof because you're a dishonest (and certifiably
insane) *****.
If I am not paid then they render themselves guilty.
Everyone pays you what you're worth: nothing.
So far, they have rendered themselves guilty in more than one case.
So far, no one gives a flying ***** at a rolling doughnut what you believe.
I also know that it is they who are seen to be the lovers of money as they
make themselves into hypocrites and inept nonfulfilling deficients as they
refuse to pay me the required sums.
You're obsessed with being paid for anything you're requested to do - thus
showing that you're the one who loves money so much, and you're too damned
stupid to understand what you babble, much less what you allegedly read.
--30--
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (SO) (March 7)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, March 9 vs. Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 11:24:30 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Tartarus Sanctus" <Tartarus@vatican.it> wrote in message
J Young wrote:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10259/CWA/life/index.htm
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
Because it costs too much.
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
How much money did you give?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune B" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 06:16:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:40:46 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Why isn't baby Charlotte worth fighting for?
I didn't read the whole thing, but this happens all the time. At some
point, and after both second and third opinions, eventually parents
must let go. We had a case similar to this in norway a few weeks ago.
A 4 year old girl on lifesupport. The parents were adament that she
was responsive etc. but after consulting both national and
international experts it was clear that she was a vegetable.
Unfortunately then the same thing happens all over the world.
So-called pro-lifers enter the scene and exploit parents pain to
further their own ends.
Are we really going to have thousands or millions of people on life
support?
--
WWJD! What Would Jack (Bauer) Do?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
06 Mar 2006 10:04:07 PM |
|
|
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:su6dnRIwashSnZDZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
<snip>
The belief that Charlotte is on a
"downward rather than an upward trend," along with her development of a
serious chest infection, is the basis of the decision.
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October 7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then, in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on October
21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift: Hedley
removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
LC~ Yeah, right.
"I take my hat off to the Nazis. What we need now is .... a solution. It can
be seen as a final one, if you like..."
From: "IBen Getiner" <Lappcatt@aol.com> aka "J Young".
Message-ID: <1129611930.510748.91890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 01:04:45 PM |
|
|
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
news:duj0nn01mri@enews3.newsguy.com...
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:su6dnRIwashSnZDZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
<snip>
The belief that Charlotte is on a
"downward rather than an upward trend," along with her development of a
serious chest infection, is the basis of the decision.
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October 7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then, in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on October
21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift: Hedley
removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 03:02:41 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:lMkPf.1948$2P2.1772@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
news:duj0nn01mri@enews3.newsguy.com...
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:su6dnRIwashSnZDZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
<snip>
The belief that Charlotte is on a
"downward rather than an upward trend," along with her development of a
serious chest infection, is the basis of the decision.
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October 7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then, in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on
October 21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved
gift: Hedley removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
Good idea, Johnny!
The line froms right here to take home your very own vegetable to
water--------------------------------------------------------------->
LC~ No waiting!
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."~ Johann Goethe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 04:43:34 PM |
|
|
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
news:duksdi0179l@enews2.newsguy.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:lMkPf.1948$2P2.1772@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
news:duj0nn01mri@enews3.newsguy.com...
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:su6dnRIwashSnZDZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
<snip>
The belief that Charlotte is on a
"downward rather than an upward trend," along with her development of a
serious chest infection, is the basis of the decision.
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October
7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then,
in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on
October 21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved
gift: Hedley removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
Good idea, Johnny!
The line froms right here to take home your very own vegetable to
water--------------------------------------------------------------->
At least then the parents can make their own decision regarding their own
child.
Do you not see how that alleviates the medical establishment of liability?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 11:20:20 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October 7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then, in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on October
21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift: Hedley
removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
Why can't you pay the cost of the equipment?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
08 Mar 2006 05:26:16 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:440e6994$0$58081$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October
7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then,
in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on
October
21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift:
Hedley
removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
Why can't you pay the cost of the equipment?
Because I am not some death order greedy piece of ***** doctor who likes to
put other person's children to death and then send them a final bill, who
can afford it, that't why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
09 Mar 2006 10:25:47 AM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October
7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then,
in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on
October
21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift:
Hedley
removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
Why can't you pay the cost of the equipment?
Because I am not some death order greedy piece of ***** doctor who likes to
You're some "death order greedy piece of *****" control freak who
steals from others so that you won't have to pay for what you want.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 02:10:04 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
news:duj0nn01mri@enews3.newsguy.com...
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:su6dnRIwashSnZDZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
<snip>
The belief that Charlotte is on a
"downward rather than an upward trend," along with her development of a
serious chest infection, is the basis of the decision.
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October 7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then, in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on October
21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift: Hedley
removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
Because the equipment is very expensive, designed and manufactured for
just the purpose of keeping the infant/youth alive, is immobile, has
specialized power needs, requires trained technicians to maintain it,
and skilled medical personnel to monitor it and the patient 24/7.
Basically, it is somewhere between impractical and impossible to do so.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Court Ruling Defies Parents' Wishes to Keep Toddler on Life Support |
07 Mar 2006 04:41:57 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1141762204.133911.167680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote in message
news:duj0nn01mri@enews3.newsguy.com...
Serial bullshitter "J 'IBen' Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:su6dnRIwashSnZDZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
<snip>
The belief that Charlotte is on a
"downward rather than an upward trend," along with her development of
a
serious chest infection, is the basis of the decision.
The ruling to allow Charlotte to die has been made before. On October
7,
2004, Hedley ruled doctors should withhold treatment from Charlotte
and
allow her to die if she required a machine to help her breathe. Then,
in
March of 2005 an appeal was made to reverse Hedley's ruling; again he
ruled against life support. Charlotte's condition improved and on
October
21, 2005, her second birthday, she received a much-deserved gift:
Hedley
removed the do-not-resuscitate order.
Give your pathetic life some meaning, IBen. Start a fund to pay for
this
child's medical expenses.
Put your time-if not your money-where your mouth is.
Why can't they take the baby home and run the life support equipment
themselves and save the room charge adn labor charges?
Because the equipment is very expensive,
You priced it?
designed and manufactured for
just the purpose of keeping the infant/youth alive, is immobile, has
specialized power needs,
120VAC, or is it DC? uniterruptible power supply?
requires trained technicians to maintain it,
In your opinion?
No wonder our health care costs are so high. With idiots like you thinking
parents can not take care of their own children, which would alleviate the
medical establishment of potential malpractice claims, the sky is the limit
for medical costs here, huh?
and skilled medical personnel to monitor it and the patient 24/7.
Idiots like you are why people must pay too much for medical services.
Basically, it is somewhere between impractical and impossible to do so.
The statement of someone who seems to be inept.
What you are telling me is that you could not do it yourself?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
