Allowing deformed babies to die from dehydration, why?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


You're right about the young tissue being scientific gold. My daughter is a research scientist for a globally recognized lab, and when they get something like what you've mentioned I hear all about how glad they are with their donation.

Also my daughter has a very close friend who is neo-natal doctor, and she once told me of a story where the baby was born with horrible deformed with some disease. The drug that the doctor used, which was controversial, but approved by the parents as a final act of compassion, paralyzed the infant's organs (lungs), and it died from lack of oxygen in just minutes.

edit on 29-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jasmine23
 


Nobody here thinks you're heartless. We all know how screwed up this system is.

BUT....
The hospitals and wards certainly get more money for every day the patient lays dying. Giving them an injection would make that bill they send out after the death probably a good few thousand less than it would've been had the person been left to die naturally.

I'm truly convinced that these people and babies are left to suffer because the money is there for the taking.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Thank you for your above comment.
This is exactly the type of situational "proof" I was intending for this thread.

I couldn't imagine being happy to get a baby's tissue to do research on, but this is a fine line and it can certainly be used for good as well as evil. This is such a thin red line the medical and scientific community is walking. I'd just like to know that the loved ones are not kept in the dark about their intentions. But, we all know that they would lose quite a bit of quality "specimens" because of the parent(s) religious views. Religion may be a concrete reason why this is being conducted in the manner it is (if my theory is correct).



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jasmine23
 





the decision is made by doctors and a family member,they cannot just decide to refuse your mother food and water, it is called neglect,but with a family member gives their ok that is the only time the nursing home hospital can do this


BS!

They deprived my mother of food and water without consulting me beforehand.
I had to "notice" what they were doing and complain about it before they told me what they were intending.

One of the last things my mother said was, "They're drugging me up! Shut up you don't know what you;re talking about, they're drugging me up!! G. Damnit let me out of here! They're trying to kill me!"

Are you trying to convince me this nursing home had the same intentions you say yours does?
They did what they did THEN after I mentioned it, they told me what they were doing. She didn't qualify for Respite, I really don't know who does because both my parents didn't and were poor.

They were killing her before they "consulted" me.
They only discussed it with me after they decided to do what they did.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

Whatever the age, whatever the reason, starving people to death is wrong. There are better ways to end a life if it needs to be done. Why do they think it's OK to do this?
I had to leave the other thread about this because it was too upsetting for me, so forgive me if I stay out of this one after this post.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 



Why do they think it's OK to do this?

MONEY!

I'm sorry if you can't particpate in this thread. I hope we can keep this thread's atmosphere sterile and without emotion like our elite are able to do because I feel that choices are being made to line pockets and add to scientific (or Hermetic?) knowledge and we are being kept in the dark by them telling us that this is the best way and this is the only choice available simply because it makes them more money and furthers their agenda.

Back in the day, we had grave robbers to get bodies for education and experimentation.
Today, we have the Death Path squad.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
This is going to be a short Op because I have no proof to offer. This is all speculation on my part, but this must be discussed. Especially with all the genetic engineering and organ donation situations, I feel this deserves a meeting of the minds.

I just finished reading this very sad article about how parents who give birth to babies with congenital birth defects are told by their doctors that their babies will most likely not survive. The parents are then pursuaded to sign paperwork for an End of Life Plan, or a Death Pathway. As soon as the parents sign, the doctors stop feeding and giving the baby water. The child dehydrates and death takes hold after an agonizing ten days (typically).
Here is the article:
www.dailymail.co.uk... j73D

Now, here is where my conspiratorial mind kicked in. Why allow this painful death when the doctors could simply inject an overdose of barbituates as we do when we have to put our beloved pets down?
My theory is that the barbituates would damage/contaminate the tissues/cells and render them useless when they that could be saved and provided to other patients or used for genetic experiments. Starving and dehydrating the cells would still preserve them for use later.

Plus, since it takes the child approximately ten days to succumb, this is more than enough time for the doctors to find a suitable donor or sell the tissues to a lab.

There's lots of money in organ donations and genetic experimentation. Are we seeing this here?
Are doctors causing suffering because they are thinking of the money they're going to receive when it would be much more humane to give the poor baby an injection of powerful drugs so they could simply fall asleep peacefully?

Thanks for reading.
edit on 29-11-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)

i would like to think not because most of the desirable organs would be damaged by the starvation process?..i dunno



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Any of you who believe "People are more important than money" are complete morons!

When your illness becomes unaffordable to whatever state medical insurance you have, they kill you!

This is exactly how it is in the real world, this isn't Grey's Anatomy, it's real life, and it's more like the show House. A rude doctor who tells you how much you suck and why.... respectable IMHO.




edit on 29-11-2012 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
In a word,
Eugenics.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vonclod
 


That's exactly what I'm also hoping to learn.
I don't know what happens to tissues and organs during starvation, but I'm assuming that the DNA would be intact and still able to examined.
Since we can rehydrate stuff all the time to eat and it's fine, I would think that rehydrating tissue wouldn't be a problem either.
All of this seems like a win-win for the medical and scientific communities as long as none of the tissue has been exposed to any chemicals or contaminants. Just as Windword confirmed, it's like gold to get very young tissue that isn't contaminated in any way.
edit on 29-11-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
i would think an organ transplant would require a top grade organ being the serious bit of surgery that it is..im sure starvation/dehydration is very stressfull on the body and organs for sure..kidneys, liver..good question though
edit on 29-11-2012 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by Advantage
reply to post by Erowynn
 





Theyll also tell you anencephalics only survive hrs.. many survive YEARS.
.

This is simply untrue. There have only been 3 recorded cases of a child surviving for several years, the oldest of which died shortly before the age of four. The vast majority of infants with this condition are born stillborn or die within hours, with or without medical assistance.

Though I have not experienced it myself I am sure it is an absolute gut-wrenching experience to watch a loved one die in this manner, and likely results in a lot of anger towards the medical community for doing 'nothing' and seemingly just letting the person die. But one has to understand that doctors are not magicians and that we currently do not have the medical advancements required to treat every condition. In a case such as terminal cancer, where the person is experiencing multiple organ failure, the introduction of nutrients/hydration into a system that no longer has the capabilities to process them will cause much more harm than good.

Euthanasia is a touchy subject, and I've always found it curious that we deem euthanizing animals to be humane, yet unacceptable for humans. I think it should be a medically acceptable practice in extreme cases, but even so, it would be opening up a big can of worms. For one, I think the likelihood of organ harvesting to be much higher in medically euthanized patients as the organs, if still viable, will be in better condition. Starvation destroys organ tissue as the body starts to consume itself in a last ditch effort for survival.




edit on 29-11-2012 by Erowynn because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2012 by Erowynn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by vonclod
 


I agree with you about the internal organs, but skin, corneas, and other things would probably still be salvageable. I have two vertebrae in my spine that were taken from a baby. I was told they came from a bone bank. They were placed into my spine when I was a year old. The bones grew well along with the rest in my spine.
edit on 29-11-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

I'm still here, just been reading some heartbreaking posts. I feel so bad for those members, I'm keeping a close eye on my mothers doctors at the moment, They already tried to leave her out of the decision making about her. I'm glad this wasn't going on when my son with severe learning disabilities was born.

I think you're probably right about the money, and at least grave robbers didn't kill people to get bodies (I hope)
This subject is too upsetting for me so it's better that I move on.
Might see you on another thread though.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Erowynn
 


He's reiterating what it says in the article about how the doctors tell the parents and loved ones that the starvation process will take hours or days, but they know it takes a lot longer.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


I appreciate you stopping back in. Hang in there. I know how difficult it must be and I can't even think about how it's going to be when I have to make decisions for my mom and dad.
I'll send some good thoughts and positive energy your way, LEL01.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 
If they deprived your mother of care without your permission are a family member in charge of her care then yes that is all out neglect and should have been reported to the state that runs the nursing home,so that was not right i agree, i don't know ,you know when you work in a nursing home and you are a aide you are just the care giver we have no choice but to do what the nursing home says even if we feel different we are just peons



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This is interesting:
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Should Dying Babies Be Organ Donors?

As many as half of the approximately 1,500 children waiting for organ transplants each year die before donors can be found. The shortage of donors has led to calls for permitting the organs of children born with the birth defect anencephaly to be donated before the children die. The issue has proved controversial, as doctors and medical ethicists debate the legality and morality of allowing the harvesting of organs from a person who is not legally dead.

Emphasis mine.

This is a good reason why the babies are being starved and won't ever be euthenized. As long as they're kept alive, their organs can be taken.

More:

Finally, proponents note the shortage of organs for transplantation in children. Because of this shortage, many children die who might otherwise live a normal life if given a transplant. Some experts believe that using organs from anencephalic infants could mean up to an additional three hundred transplants a year. Faced with this prospect, proponents contend that society's interests are advanced by making a narrow exception to the dead donor rule.

Opponents are horrified at the idea of removing organs from a living infant. They contend that the dead donor rule is an important boundary in medical science. Crossing this line in the case of anencephalic infants, they contend, will cause a "slippery slope" effect. Physicians might ask to harvest organs from coma victims or from children with other severe, but nonfatal brain defects. Opponents argue that blurring the definition of brain death will have detrimental consequences to society greater than the benefit of obtaining organs from several hundred infants each year.


The new regulations angered a number of states and hospitals. The state of Wisconsin, the University of Wisconsin Hospitals, and Froedert Memorial Lutheran Hospital filed a lawsuit in federal district court, claiming that the regulations would severely reduce the number of organs available to their patients. The plaintiffs alleged that the HHS lacked legislative authority to broaden the regional organ sharing networks. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the regulations would injure the hospitals financially because they would have to pay a larger amount of the transplantation network's operating costs. However, in an unpublished decision, a federal district court in Wisconsin dismissed the case because the plaintiffs lacked standing to file the lawsuit.

edit on 29-11-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Here is alittle story from my nursing home aide days,i worked on the locked unit for residents with violent behavior,now they tell you if you see abuse by another aide report it,a med aide was on the unit trying to give a patient medicine the lady was refusing and getting very agitated the med aide was screaming at her to take her damn medicine and cussing so i reported her to the head boss,guess who was called on the carpet for it me,lucky for me another family member was on the unit visiting and overheard everything going on,he had to file a report telling them i was telling the truth,she was fired, some nursing are in it for the money it is a business to them,not to the aides that work there we care more for the residents than the head honchos who run the place



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Here's an interesting read titled "Babies As Organ Farms" by Gregory Koukl
www.str.org...

The editorial reads, "Under the laws of every state and under prevailing medical ethics, human organs cannot be removed for transplant until the donor is legally dead. There is a good rationale for this: to prevent abuses. But every rule needs an exception, and one is warranted in the tragic cases of anencephalic newborns. Anencephaly is a congenital birth defect in which the infant is born without a forebrain and a cerebrum, but is able to survive for a short time with a brain stem that permits breathing, sucking, and other autonomic functions. Without higher brain functions, they can never experience consciousness, thoughts, emotions, pain, or anything remotely resembling a human being. Few survive more than a few days, yet their organs cannot be used to fill the desperate need for transplants to other infants because the organs deteriorate badly if doctors must wait for natural death to occur."

Are you following this? We're talking about a severely handicapped individual with a brain stem, automatic responses, but no cognitive functions. This is a tragic circumstance, but the infants are now protected by law because they are human beings who are alive. The law disallows them for being used as donors of their organs because in the process of having their organs taken from them they are killed.

If you recall in 1992, Baby Theresa in Florida was the subject of a lot of discussion and a court decision regarding this very issue. The court ruled to protect the child because the child was not dead yet. I did a commentary at the time called "I'm Not Dead Yet."


If we follow this guideline that is offered in the editorial, the question then is, How handicapped does a human have to be before she can be used as an organ farm? That's really the question.

edit on 29-11-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join