Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

He cant see, speak or eat? If thats the case and he's doomed to be like that for the rest of his life, then do the poor kid a favor and pull the plug.

"Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended." "

Are people just saying the most ridiculous things to piss me off nowadays?

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended." "

Are, people just saying the most ridiculous things to piss me off nowadays?

yeah, its simply astonishing how dumb as shit these people are

genetic screening anyone?

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended." "

Are people just saying the most ridiculous things to piss me off nowadays?

Granted, but don't be so quick to judge her. Anyone can be obtuse and say "let him die, he has no chance of surviving" and it certainly is logical; I am one of those people. But I do think it's complete bullshit that the hospital has say over the parents of when the child dies.

Originally posted by Robtard
Granted, but don't be so quick to judge her. Anyone can be obtuse and say "let him die, he has no chance of surviving" and it certainly is logical; I am one of those people. But I do think it's complete bullshit that the hospital has say over the parents of when the child dies.

No, yes, no.....

The point is her argument is stupid. She talks about natural death with her son having a wacky waving inflatable arm man tube in his throat...

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, yes, no.....

The point is her argument is stupid. She talks about natural death with her son having a wacky waving inflatable arm man tube in his throat...

I agreed that her "natural death... as God intended..." reasoning is stupid, considering the situation. But the parents shouldn't have the say, why?

of course the parents should have a say. however if god really had the final word that baby would be dead.

Originally posted by Schecter
of course the parents should have a say. however if god really had the final word that baby would be dead.

That's my point.

I agree that her "reasoning" is illogical when taking into account the situation, but that doesn't counter her having the final say.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's my point.

I agree that her "reasoning" is illogical when taking into account the situation, but that doesn't counter her having the final say. Then we all agree.

yes, we all agree that that lady is dumb as shit...good...moving along

Hmm....

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hmm....

Hehe, poor and vulnerable....like that little kid that is constantly in pain.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hmm....

Wonder why that law was passed? Do you think it's of any possible chance the multibillion dollar insurance companies had a hand in it...

"The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate"–even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile."

Originally posted by Robtard
Wonder why that law was passed? Do you think it's of any possible chance the multibillion dollar insurance companies had a hand in it...



Some thieves will rob you with weapon....other thieves will rob you with a fountain pen.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Some thieves will rob you with weapon....other thieves will rob you with a fountain pen.

Quote of Dwarf?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wonder why that law was passed? Do you think it's of any possible chance the multibillion dollar insurance companies had a hand in it...

"The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate"–even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile."

That was nearly 8 years ago. He supports the "culture of life" now.

culture of destroying lives

"Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate."

Is that really how it's framed under Texas law or is that some sort of editorial slip up?

Anyway. Obviously it's better to keep the kid doped up and on a ventilator while he slowly suffers from a disease that's incurable, progressive and ultimately fatal, just so the mother can watch him probably smile.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate."

Is that really how it's framed under Texas law or is that some sort of editorial slip up?

Anyway. Obviously it's better to keep the kid doped up and on a ventilator while he slowly suffers from a disease that's incurable, progressive and ultimately fatal, just so the mother can watch him probably smile.

That's not the issue, it's whether the hospital has the right to decide when the child dies over the parent(s). I think it's cruel too, I am also not in the mothers shoes though.

1. Administer morphine.
2. Remove baby from ventilator.
3. Attach cord to baby's neck and swing about in a humorous fashion.

I think the moral "debate" in this situation is clear.

That's what she said.

Originally posted by FeceMan
1. Administer morphine.
2. Remove baby from ventilator.
3. Attach cord to baby's neck and swing about in a humorous fashion.

That's not funny. >.<

Originally posted by Eccentric
That's not funny. >.<


yes it is....however loosely borrowed from tom green

Originally posted by Schecter
yes it is....however loosely borrowed from tom green
What attempt at personal assassination is this? I would rather lop off my own genitals than suffer the antics of that attention-whoring untermensch.

Originally posted by FeceMan
What attempt at personal assassination is this? I would rather lop off my own genitals than suffer the antics of that attention-whoring untermensch.

He did actually do that...in Freddy Got Fingered I believe....

Originally posted by Eccentric
That's not funny. >.<

And yes, yes it is.

Though I don't follow the morphine part. Kind of a waste if you ask me.

I would never subject myself to an atrocity such as that. For shame.

Although, I decided on administering morphine to ease the little wretch's passage. The steps aren't set in stone, though.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think the moral "debate" in this situation is clear.

Which is?

Originally posted by FeceMan
I would never subject myself to an atrocity such as that. For shame.

Although, I decided on administering morphine to ease the little wretch's passage. The steps aren't set in stone, though.


LOLZ dont forget to send tom green his royalty check *runs away laughing*

cCSmx5_Jvn8

Hate you. So...much...

doped

Yeah the whole ordeal is idiotic to say the least. Lets take away the doctor's ability to withdraw medical services when there's no hope for the patient. The infant is blind, deaf and is unable to survive without assisted breathing, yet they keep it on life support; unable to see; unable to hear. Why?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Yeah the whole ordeal is idiotic to say the least. Lets take away the doctor's ability to withdraw medical services when there's no hope for the patient. The infant is blind, deaf and is unable to survive without assisted breathing, yet they keep it on life support; unable to see; unable to hear. Why?

A doctor does not have the right to withdraw medical services without consent of the patient.

The issue HERE is that the child is in severe pain, making it medically unethical to prolong the childs life.

Originally posted by Alliance
A doctor does not have the right to withdraw medical services without consent of the patient.

The issue HERE is that the child is in severe pain, making it medically unethical to prolong the childs life.

Correct.. Just like a pharmacist now has the right to not fill (give you/person) any "morning after pill" that a MD/provider has ordered.

Originally posted by Alliance
A doctor does not have the right to withdraw medical services without consent of the patient.

The issue HERE is that the child is in severe pain, making it medically unethical to prolong the childs life.

If that was the issue, then why isn't assisted suicided legal for people who have painful and fatal illnesses?

Because there's a difference between withdrawing life support and actively killing the person.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because there's a difference between withdrawing life support and actively killing the person.

Lets see, one can't say "do it" or "don't so it" for themselves, while the other is actively wanting to die and end his/her "severe pain". Hmm.

Originally posted by Robtard
If that was the issue, then why isn't assisted suicided legal for people who have painful and fatal illnesses? It is in Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. And Oregon apparently, which surprised me.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is in Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. And Oregon apparently, which surprised me.

Considering it's an American story/situation, other nation's laws are irrelevant here.

It is in Oregon, have a link? I believe you, just extremely surprised. Didn't know states had the authority to decide individually on this issue.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering it's an American story/situation, other nation's laws are irrelevant here.

It is in Oregon, have a link? I believe you, just extremely surprised. Didn't know states had the authority to decide individually on this issue.

States have always had that authority. At least untili the national Supreme Cort over rules them.

Originally posted by Devil King
States have always had that authority. At least untili the national Supreme Cort over rules them.

I was under the impression that "assisted suicide" was one of those cases.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lets see, one can't say "do it" or "don't so it" for themselves, while the other is actively wanting to die and end his/her "severe pain". Hmm.
That's part of it, yes.

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's part of it, yes.

So logically the hospital should have say over the parents or family for those who can't speak for themselves?

Originally posted by Robtard
So logically the hospital should have say over the parents or family for those who can't speak for themselves?
When did I say that?

Originally posted by FeceMan
When did I say that?

When did I say you did? It was a question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering it's an American story/situation, other nation's laws are irrelevant here.

It is in Oregon, have a link? I believe you, just extremely surprised. Didn't know states had the authority to decide individually on this issue. I know, it was just a semi-interesting aside.

I should clarify actually, on closer inspection the Oregon statute is assisted suicide in a strict literal sense and not euthanasia, in that the lethal dose is self-administered upon prescription by a physician.
http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because there's a difference between withdrawing life support and actively killing the person.

Yeah, withdrawing life-support seems more inhumane.

Originally posted by Robtard
I agreed that her "natural death... as God intended..." reasoning is stupid, considering the situation. But the parents shouldn't have the say, why?

Because it might be obstructing the potentially life saving treatment of other babies with a shot at life.

You can overstate a Dcotor's responsibility to treat a patient. There is a point- and we have reached that point- at where such treatment performs no practical use other than to make the Mother feel better. That is not the job of a Doctor.

It's a waste of resources, it's not helping the patient and wasting time on it could be harming others.

Doctors should absolutely have the right to decide when treatment is futile or not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, withdrawing life-support seems more inhumane.

Actually very true in that it likely causes more suffering.

But still very different from actively making an effort to kill, and that is an important distinction.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually very true in that it likely causes more suffering.

But still very different from actively making an effort to kill, and that is an important distinction.

Not to me. Not in my moral view. Well, I guess it is different. But as I said I would in this case prefer if they were actively killed in a humane way...

What would you say is the "moral" thing to do?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because it might be obstructing the potentially life saving treatment of other babies with a shot at life.

You can overstate a Dcotor's responsibility to treat a patient. There is a point- and we have reached that point- at where such treatment performs no practical use other than to make the Mother feel better. That is not the job of a Doctor.

It's a waste of resources, it's not helping the patient and wasting time on it could be harming others.

Doctors should absolutely have the right to decide when treatment is futile or not.

That's a very fine line then, which can easily be abused. As noted in the story, if the family had money and they could personally pay for it, this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately for her , her insurance or the state is paying for it so therefore the pressure on the hospital to "save" is there.

If the resources being utilized to keep this moribund baby alive, while he suffers the fatal, incurable, progressive disease, could be "saved" and therefore better used to help other families that need it, what then?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If the resources being utilized to keep this moribund baby alive, while he suffers the fatal, incurable, progressive disease, could be "saved" and therefore better used to help other families that need it, what then?

If It came down to another person's life being threatened due to lack of resources, then sure, saving the one you can is the logical choice. This isn't the case though, it's "the baby is suffering, so just end it" as far as the hospital is concerned.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was under the impression that "assisted suicide" was one of those cases.

I'm not sure about that. I wasn't addressing assisted sucide. I was talking about states rights alone.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And Oregon apparently, which surprised me.

It shouldn't be surprising that its legal in Oregon.

Originally posted by Robtard
When did I say you did? It was a question.
The hospital should, I think, have some say whether or not an individual is kept on life support. It is, after all, their equipment, and keeping someone alive and in pain is both ethically questionable and a waste of the hospital's resources.