Eugenics In Action

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,975
Reaction score
2,156
3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant Because She Is “Mentally Retarded”
“So you mean to tell me that as a doctor, you are not recommending the transplant, and when her kidneys fail in six months to a year, you want me to let her die because she is mentally retarded? There is no other medical reason for her not to have this transplant other than she is MENTALLY RETARDED!”

“Yes. This is hard for me, you know.”

My eyes burn through his soul as if I could set him on fire right there. “Ok, so now what? This is not acceptable to me. Who do I talk to next?”

“I will take this back to the team. We meet once a month. I will tell them I do not recommend Amelia for a transplant because she is mentally retarded and we will vote.”

“And then who do I see?”

“Well, you can then take it the ethics committee but as a team we have the final say. Feel free to go somewhere else. But it won’t be done here.”
Click to expand...
Hundreds of healthy babies are being aborted every year simply because of scan blunders (wink, wink)

Hundreds of mothers-to-be a year are being wrongly told they have lost their baby because of mistakes in reading ultrasound scans, doctors fear.
Some of the 400 women given a wrong diagnosis each year will choose to wait to see if they go on to miscarry naturally but others will take the option of terminating the pregnancy.
Click to expand...
 
Life support systems are terminated for those that are considered to be "vegetables". Medical procedures are denied to elderly patients because they would be a "waste of resources". Terminally ill children are regarded as "not worth saving".
Click to expand...
Insurers are quite aware of this and seek to maintain their profits. Even if that were not the case and there was public care, there would still come a burden which the tax payers would balk at. How many infirm people can a civilization support based on the number of able bodied people? How much extra would you pay on your policy to make sure that Amelia could get her kidney (and which people would you be willing to kill to supply the necessary organs)?

Quite a lot when they have an energy source as prolific as oil. But without? Not so many. You can lament previous civilizations that let so many die but we will be there again one day unless we fix our ways and then we will be tossing our less then perfect eagerly into the furnaces and rendering plants.

Forget about the "population control agenda" of the elite. They know a population crash is almost inevitable - their agenda is merely to make the people who die not be them.

So there is a little girl who is mentally retarded and who will die without new kidneys. That's terrible - but then it's not like kidneys grow on trees and it's not like there are endless available hours of surgeon time and surgery time. There are otherwise healthy people who will be more productive who need those resources too. What do you recommend? Give the mentally retarded kid the kidney transplant or give it to the "normal" kid? Sure, it's nice to give everybody what they want but that is just what you would call bleeding-heart-liberal-wishy-washy-ness. Nothing is unlimited and choices need to be made.

Perhaps if the healthcare system were made fully public then twice as many people could be treated for the current cost but no-one seems to want that (except the majority of people).

You want a quick and easy solution? Try praying to God. He promised to answer all prayers prayed in earnest, didn't He? But perhaps it's just His will that babies and children are born crippled or die of natural and unnatural causes. If God's happy offing toddlers with all manner of painful and heartbreaking maladies then who are you to complain?
 
When it comes to organ transplant, there are certain criteria that can bump you up the list, and others that take you off. It's not strictly first come first serve. Cancer patients for example pretty much have no chance of an organ transplant, even if they've been cancer free for a number of years (anti-rejection drugs tend to cause cancer so you'd be fixing one thing and breaking another and in the meantime wasting a valuable organ). That's a more clear cut case. Others might not be so much. Older people might be placed lower on the list in favor of younger patients. Kids are almost always bumped to the top, healthy kids ahead of less healthy kids, etc. This isn't about eugenics however, it's about not wasting an organ. Waste one organ and you effectively kill two people.
 
It'd be frickin' awesome if one could buy a kidney at the store. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. I suspect when we do grow kidney's it'll be in part due to Stem Cell Research. Why? Well, it's currently the most promising area for this sort of endeavor. Providing a kidney more compatible with the host along with less anti-rejection drugs is something the Republican Party is against because it's too close to abortion.

We also have Republicans against the 'government death panels'. As a result of their actions they leave the private death panels in place. Republicans if you don't like the death panel - too bad it'hes the one you wanted and they aren't responsible to anything but profitability.

In the real world someone has to decide how to deal with precious resources. We can have a panel that selects an organ on best fit. (Like here) Or we could simply move to another Republican idea - capitalism solves every problem in the world. If we had a Capitalist system so if the handicapped baby's parents were say, David Koch, the highest bidder would get the organ and we wouldn't need a death panel. Poor parents would be their own death panel. Get a real job parents!

Egads - It's really amazing how much fail this post is for the present state of American conservatism. Too bad the conservative himself didn't realize it.
 
This whole discussion makes me sad because every choice is a Sophie's choice in a way. life isn't fair, even from the get go, and that's the way the world is. There are only so many hours in a day, so many resources to allocate. Triage has to happen and in the field hospital some private will bleed out of a shredded organ because there are four other guys who can live if they get their much simpler sutures now. The first Hippocratic oath is to do no harm. After that is to do as much good as you can with the resources you have. It's not like there a person who will die without your help - it's more like everyone will die without your help - how can you save the most people. Tough choices but are you going to prefer the outcome where four or five easy cases die because you spent all your time on the really serious one? If you can't do the calculation then you will be more of a liability then an asset.

Sure, deep down we'd all like to be able to save everyone. If we had perfect knowledge and infinite power and we knew and loved every single person personally, of course we would fix everyone - but that never happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top