i'm reminded of a set of twin boys born at 21 weeks a few weeks before our daughter was born at 26 weeks - they were just struggling infants and left the hospital about the same time our own did - sure they had a tougher time, but they were fighters and were present as healthy toddlers at one of the reunions.

who said this:

"conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are NOT basic and SHOULD NOT BE guaranteed."?

it's coming.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel?

Why did he edit the articles to remove the paragraphs?

I was right!

Shoudn't they have waited a few weeks more so they could have harvested his organs? I am sure the baby wanted his organs to be donated.

Which is exactly the point-Zombiehunter, without the information-they can all pretend to know he was viable with no serious problems that couldn't be dealt with-and use it to bash Dems some more.

Gettin' a wee bit tedious-isn't it?

Which is exactly the point-Zombiehunter, without the information-they can all pretend to know he wasn't viable with serious problems that couldn't be dealt with-and use it to bash Republicans some more.

Gettin' a wee bit tedious-isn't it?

#7 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-09-08 02:45 PM

FTFY

I doubt there is any 22 week cut off period for neonates.

Fetuses are protected from abortion after 24 weeks in most states, however, once separated from the mother and breathing on its own, a neaonate is no longer a fetus, but a member of society--there is a birth certificate---and a death certificate for all humans born in developed countries.

However--say I am mistaken--universal health care couldn't be worse than what was reported, and would definitely have supplied any necessary care for the infant in question. The only source of death panels today are located in the insurance company board rooms. That pro-fetus people support them is an extreme irony.

Fetuses are protected from abortion after 24 weeks in most states,

Irrelevant. The story is about the universal health care system in BRITAIN. Which debunks both points you thought you had.

1) Your first point about breathing is in error since it has been proven previously that babies have been left to die through in attention after surviving abortions. If simply breathing were enough to mandate treatment then the doctors in those cases would have been charged with murder. They weren't and Obama opposed legislation in Illinois that would have mandated the care.

2) Obviously universal health care wouldn't fix the problem or make it better since the story in the article happened WITH universal health care.

Something sounds fishy about this story. Anybody have any other links about this?

Of course it sounds fishy... it isn't something you want to hear. Try googling next time.

Just for you:

I found a Boston Globe article from 2008 that discusses premature births. According to the article, medical research indicates that at 21 weeks a fetus' lungs are incapable of processing oxygen. Very rarely a 21 week old may defy all odds and survive, but usually with profound birth defects. I'm not supporting a strict line regarding which babies receive treatment and which do not because I'm not a medical expert. However, this appears to be a biological fact of fetal development.

According to the article, medical research indicates that at 21 weeks a fetus' lungs are incapable of processing oxygen.

1) Obviously not the case or the baby in question would have been dead in about 6 minutes tops after birth... not two hours.

2) The baby in question was born only 2 days from the 22 week mark.

3) Drugs can be administered to halt delivery (was done with my wife when in labor with my son) for up to almost a week if necessary to give more development time. Doctors in this case refused to do that even though to do so would have put her beyond the 22 marker.

4) Steroids can be injected (and are routinely in the US for premature babies) that would accelerate lung development. Doctors also refused to do this even though doing so alone or in conjunction with stopping labor for a few days would have greatly increased the survivability rate.

The fact is, there are things that could have been done before birth, and even after birth they didn't even try to save the child. Since when should a 16% chance be an automatic death sentence for a child?

The fact is, there are things that could have been done before birth, and even after birth they didn't even try to save the child. Since when should a 16% chance be an automatic death sentence for a child?

Where did you get the 16% survival rate from?

Where did you get the 16% survival rate from?

Was repeating a point that Zombiehunter tried to make before. He stated:

"The survival rate of birth before 23 weeks is 16% considering all cases."

Maybe he was wrong and maybe he was right, but either way there were things they could have done before birth to increase survival chances. The doctors chose not to. There were things they could have done after birth to try and save the baby. The doctors chose not to.

There were things they could have done after birth to try and save the baby.

I feel that something could be done also, but at what cost? And this is more a rhetorical question. My heart says, yeah you have to try what you can. Unless, some expert tells me that there is a 0% chance of survival, it does seem most humane to try something. Just glad my job doesn't involve life and death decisions. Feel bad for the mom in this article. It must be devastating.

I feel that something could be done also, but at what cost?

They only reason not to stop the labor for a few days and give a shot of steroids to accelerate lung development is if they didn't WANT to bother with a 22 week preemie. At 22 weeks they would have HAD to treat it... they evidently just didn't WANT to try.

My heart says, yeah you have to try what you can. Unless, some expert tells me that there is a 0% chance of survival,

If you can find a source that says the doctors didn't feel it would have had a chance even if labor had been stopped for a few days with steroid treatment then maybe that would be a valid argument. However, I have yet to see one source that claims any such thing about the baby having something wrong other than being a bit early.

I've been reading through med journal articles that are available online without subscription (very few) and haven't found a definitive answer to survival rates between 21 and 23 weeks. Looking more and more like mom and baby really got hosed.

My previous question...at what cost...was more a question of what the physical damage might be to the baby if it were saved.

Was repeating a point that Zombiehunter tried to make before. He stated:

"The survival rate of birth before 23 weeks is 16% considering all cases."

Maybe he was wrong and maybe he was right

I was going off of the figure in Diablo's article.

The fact is, there are things that could have been done before birth, and even after birth they didn't even try to save the child. Since when should a 16% chance be an automatic death sentence for a child?

If there is a "survival rate" that you encounter, that is an average that considers all cases. In reality, not all cases are the same. Some complications of pre-term birth can be treated better than others and will carry their own risk of death.

There are quite a few problems a preemie can have, and the point is that you don't know if this specific child's specific problems made long-term survival impossible. Without that information no one can brand this malpractice or a "death panel". All you know is that a pre-term baby died. It's certainly a tragedy, but it's not a reason to take your pitchfork, torch, and AR15 to the nearest town hall meeting.

It is not "Diablo's article," zombie. The link is provided for attribution if you ever ascend to honesty.
But under PRIVATE health care....well, the mom would have sued the shit out of the callous doctors who left a kid to die.
She would have won, too.
Under Obama/Fabian/Euro health care....
Too friggin bad! Your kid is dead and, to be exact, was never a kid. Now pay more taxes!

at what cost...was more a question of what the physical damage might be to the baby if it were saved.

Babies have been saved at that age that have grown up normally. The fact is, the costs that you speak of can't really be predicted until you at least TRY. Every case is different and there are too many factors to say in advance.

Here is some information from March of Dimes about babies born below the 28 week gestational period:

Survival rates can vary greatly depending on factors other than gestational age. Factors that can improve survival rates include higher birthweight, female sex, history of prenatal treatment with corticosteroids (drugs that speed lung development) and singleton birth (not part of a twin or other multiple birth) (14). Unfortunately, about 25 percent of these very premature babies develop serious lasting disabilities, and up to half may have milder problems, such as learning and behavioral problems (15).

and the point is that you don't know if this specific child's specific problems made long-term survival impossible

I have seen nothing to suggest such a condition in any of the articles I have seen on this case. If you know of one that says there was one please link it for us.

But "Do not try at all" is the national health care solution.....

Let all be honest: this article shows what happens when a conscience exemption is not allowed for health care practitioners. If a doctor or nurse wanted to try to save this kid, it was forbidden by law.
QED: you MUST allow murder even when you think it is murder because ...."vee vas only followink orders!"
That is the 'enlightened' view of left wing kooks.

when a conscience exemption is not allowed for health care practitioners. If a doctor or nurse wanted to try to save this kid, it was forbidden by law.

The saddest part is that there was no exemption needed. Helping this child wasn't forbidden, it was just simply standard procedure to let them die.

From the article:

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions', but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

If this were not a child, why not sell it to the Alpo factory and at least recoup some of the English taxpayer's money spent to provide such astonishingly humane care?

"it was forbidden by law."

Bullshit.

"The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions'..."

Then they're certainly NOT law.

So danforth: you think what should have been done here with this child left to die?
(danniboy is now going to flip around and excuse himself....otherwise he will have to tell everyone what he thinks is moral...something that might destroy his imagined civic morality....)

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-09 12:40 AM

A little late to the party with that observation aren't you, Danforth? And with much less substance to the post as well.

"A little late to the party with that observation aren't you, Danforth"

I was answering #27. Took too long for your tastes?

"So danforth: you think what should have been done here with this child left to die?"

I think they should have tried everything to save it.

Still, you were (as usual) full of shit when you claimed it was "law".

Danniboy! "It" was not "human" according to medical protocol but YOU dare say "it" should have been helped to survive?
How can that be so, danniboy? "It' was never "human" and hence anti-abortion protestors are "fanatics."
Or have you changed your views?

It...it....it....
Does anyone else see the revolting anti-human angle of using "it" to describe a human?
Remember "Silence of the Lambs" when the psycho was calling her "it" while his captive was in the pit?
Danniboy: the "it" thinker.

I was answering #27. Took too long for your tastes?

Nope. Just noticing that you responded almost a full 10 minutes after that #27 had already been answer, except you did it with less substance. Indeed, it seems your only purpose in posting your response was to blast somebody that you supposedly agree with on this issue. Seems kind of pointless.

I will refer to danforth as "it" from now on. I refuse to insult either gender by associating it with them.

"Indeed, it seems your only purpose in posting your response was to blast somebody that you supposedly agree with on this issue."

He stated it was law. That was bullshit.

""It' was never "human" and hence anti-abortion protestors are "fanatics.""

Why do you believe anti-abortion protestors are fanatics?

He stated it was law. That was bullshit.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-09 01:25 AM

And you wasted time pointing out something that had already been addressed with more substance.

As I said... pointless.

It's a scream DDTiablo will sling feces on virtually every thread at the drop of a hat, but get his panties in a wad if a baby isn't referred to by it's gender.

From the linked article and clear as a bell:

"The medical guidance for NHS hospitals, limiting care of the most premature babies, was drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2006. The guidelines are clear: no baby below 22 weeks gestation should be resuscitated."

It's not law, but it must be obeyed, but it's not law....
Sounds like an Obama speech!

"And you wasted time pointing out something that had already been addressed with more substance."

AFTER post #27?

And if substance was the only barometer, you'd never post.

"it was forbidden by law."
"It's not law"

The word is guidelines. If you don't know the difference between that and "law", I suggest you buy a dictionary.

I am confused, danni-it. You wrote:

"it was forbidden by law."
"It's not law"

Do you mean a male or female when you use "it" in those clips?

It's not law, but it must be obeyed, but it's not law....
Sounds like an Obama speech!
(Or like danni-it logic!)

And if substance was the only barometer, you'd never post.

After your posts here I don't think I should be taking lessons on substance from you.

How is this, you and Diablo both agree this baby should be treated.

Diablo is resorting to ad hominem to dig at you on the abortion issue. Fine. Get him on that. More power to you and you actually have decent grounds for a counter-attack.

However, to come out of the blue with a stupid post like your #30 which looks more like an ill-thought-out troll attempt on an issue that you generally agree on (whether the baby should have been treated)... you can do better than that.

"I am confused"

No sh-it.

They only reason not to stop the labor for a few days and give a shot of steroids to accelerate lung development is if they didn't WANT to bother with a 22 week preemie. At 22 weeks they would have HAD to treat it... they evidently just didn't WANT to try.

Bullshit.

You're assigning the doctors positions they may not have held.

Hell, you're assigning the doctors positions they more than likely WOULDN'T have held.

It's not as if they didn't help the baby because it was some sort of inconvenience. They didn't help the baby because in their professional opinion, all efforts would be futile.

It's cold, callous and sterile, but such is the reality of that sort of job.

"which looks more like an ill-thought-out troll attempt on an issue that you generally agree on"

It was a simple correction of his #27. I didn't read every post before answering.

That time of the month?

"It's not law, but it must be obeyed, but it's not law...."

Diablo: Still stupid and still proud of that fact.

Have you looked up the word guidelines yet, or are you satisfied being a moron?

"It's cold, callous and sterile, but such is the reality of that sort of job."

As I have pointed out many times before, jpw, the oath is "First do no harm...."
You treat humans as if they were baking powder in your mixing bowl waiting for a god like you to create something.

Danni! You decide whether this was a male or female or an "it" the British doctors let die?
Just wondering, Einstein.

"You decide whether this was a male or female or an "it" the British doctors let die?"

It was a male. I know, because you posted a thread title, "Just Kill Him."

Why did you want to kill him?

It's not as if they didn't help the baby because it was some sort of inconvenience. They didn't help the baby because in their professional opinion, all efforts would be futile.

You are making assumptions here. No such rationale was given or alluded to. The only rationale seemed to be a set of impersonal "guidelines" that didn't strictly have to be followed.

However that is besides the point. The point being, there were things they could have done when she first started labor to delay the birth until after the 22 week period. The "guidelines" would have permitted preemie care after that point. A point that was only 3 days after she went in labor... well within the normal range of stopping labor. They also could have used corticosteroids to accelerate lung development during the time labor was stopped to increase the chances of survival.

However they chose instead to LET her have the baby KNOWING it would be born 2 days below the "guideline's" cut-off time to help the baby after birth.

Nothing in any of the articles suggested that there was a known condition that would have made the baby less viable than any other preemie at that age.

Taking all of those things into consideration, I stick by my original assessment that they didn't do any of these things because they didn't WANT to. I don't know why they didn't want to, but knowledge of motives isn't necessary to assess what they didn't do but could have.

As I have pointed out many times before, jpw, the oath is "First do no harm...."

Did they do harm, diablo? Did they in anyway inhibit the chances of that baby surviving? Can you prove without a doubt that that baby was a 16%er? What, no you can't you say. Well then you're talking out your ass AGAIN despite being deficient on information AGAIN.

You treat humans as if they were baking powder in your mixing bowl waiting for a god like you to create something.

Uh huh. You know me so well diablo.

Have you ever bitched about the cost of healthcare? If so, you're a hypocrite.

It was a simple correction of his #27.

My response to him was a correction. You, however, included the more inflammatory "Bullshit" in your anemic response. That seems more of an attempt to goad rather than "a simple correction". However, I guess I could give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe your abrasiveness wasn't intentional. That IS how it came across though.

"Can you prove without a doubt that that baby was a 16%er?"

According to the article, 16% isn't correct. The last line is:

"Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities."

Nothing in any of the articles suggested that there was a known condition that would have made the baby less viable than any other preemie at that age.

And there's nothing in the article to suggest the absence of a condition that made the baby less viable.

Taking all of those things into consideration, I stick by my original assessment that they didn't do any of these things because they didn't WANT to. I don't know why they didn't want to, but knowledge of motives isn't necessary to assess what they didn't do but could have.

No, but actual knowledge of the situation is required.

You're drawing your conclusion because that's what YOU want to believe. For some reason you have assumed the worst in the doctors and, despite a lack of knowledge of the motives and situation, are assuming they took the worst road.

How far a long was she in labor? How far was her cervix dilated? What is the cut off for administration of labor prolonging drugs or steroids? You are completely neglecting to consider the fact that birth may have been the ONLY option and that this case is an extreme exception to the rule; a particularly rare case that is sad and tragic but damn near inevitable.

"That seems more of an attempt to goad rather than "a simple correction"."

Diablo has a habit in thread after thread to post lies, and then refuse to either back them up, or retract the bullshit. He'll even post link after link that doesn't substantiate his bogus claims. He's our own little feces-slinging monkey. Of course, maybe it's all the DDT he admittedly inhaled as a kid.

Did they in anyway inhibit the chances of that baby surviving? Can you prove without a doubt that that baby was a 16%er?

We can't prove "without a doubt" that you wouldn't die next week from some other cause. Does that mean that if you were dehydrated we could feel justified in not treating you and letting you die?

My answer... no. The right thing to do is to treat what you have, not what you SUPPOSE you maybe, possibly, MIGHT have.

If you can give the baby oxygen (standard for preemies) and feed it intravenously (standard for extreme preemies) then you do it. If it dies after you gave an honest effort... so be it.

To not try however is just plain inhumane and despicable.

And there's nothing in the article to suggest the absence of a condition that made the baby less viable.

Sorry, but if you are in business to prove a negative then you will starve. It can't be done.

Burden of proof is on those that claim he might have had such a condition.

You're drawing your conclusion because that's what YOU want to believe.

No, I am making an educated statement based on knowledge both personal in preemie matters, and based on information in the article. They could have delayed the birth by two days and given drugs to accelerate lung development. This was already stated in the article. I didn't have to make a damn thing up.

You however are supposing conditions that you have no evidence of and expecting us to take it as fact because it is what YOU want to believe.

We can't prove "without a doubt" that you wouldn't die next week from some other cause. Does that mean that if you were dehydrated we could feel justified in not treating you and letting you die?

If there was well established data indicating I had a 16% chance to make it until next week and there was a limited supply of water, you bet your ass there'd be some long and hard thought as to whether or not my treatment was paramount.

My answer... no. The right thing to do is to treat what you have, not what you SUPPOSE you maybe, possibly, MIGHT have.

You make it seem as if it was 50/50 and the doctors made the decision on a whim. Neither is true and you're disingenuous if you try to claim otherwise.

If you can give the baby oxygen (standard for preemies) and feed it intravenously (standard for extreme preemies) then you do it. If it dies after you gave an honest effort... so be it.

To not try however is just plain inhumane and despicable.

I actually think they should have at least given minimal care. I mean, hell a person under cardiac arrest who's been clinically dead for a period of time will still probably get some sort of minimal care. Besides, the edges of what we can and can't do are only pushed outward by taking extreme cases.

If this works out for the better, the policies will change and maybe, just MAYBE we can push the envelope of medicine just a little further.

How far a long was she in labor? How far was her cervix dilated? What is the cut off for administration of labor prolonging drugs or steroids?

Doesn't matter. My wife went into labor with our son, her water broke and she was dilated. They stopped labor for 4 days until they got test results back that said it was safe to deliver my son (according to the due date he should have been a month and a half early).

Here are the reasons given for not stopping the labor in this case:

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby's lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

You however are supposing conditions that you have no evidence of and expecting us to take it as fact because it is what YOU want to believe.

I'm not supposing shit. I'm pointing out that the converse situation from what you propose is just as likely given the lack of information.

I don't, however, have the hubris to question a decision made by professionals in a field that I am not trained in with little more than a shitty article from the Daily Mail for information.

"If there was well established data indicating I had a 16% chance to make it "

Again, doesn't the last line of the article say it's only 1%...?

Doesn't matter. My wife went into labor with our son, her water broke and she was dilated. They stopped labor for 4 days until they got test results back that said it was safe to deliver my son (according to the due date he should have been a month and a half early).

Bullshit it matters.

You're making unqualified, unsubstantiated statements based on your own anecdotal evidence.

I find it hard to believe that there isn't some point along the progression through labor at which the administration of drugs to prevent birth will be ineffective. You're wife probably hadn't reached that point. This woman may have.

Again, there is not enough information available at hand (nor the expertise required for analysis of information) to believe anything this woman says in this tabloid rag of a "newspaper."

If there was well established data indicating I had a 16% chance to make it until next week and there was a limited supply of water, you bet your ass there'd be some long and hard thought as to whether or not my treatment was paramount.

And where was the limited supply in this baby story? You are injecting elements to support your case that quite frankly aren't there.

If you mean funding problems due to government health care which mandated rationing, then you have simply stated the point that government health care opponents like myself have been talking about all along. Thanks for your agreement.

You make it seem as if it was 50/50 and the doctors made the decision on a whim.

No, you are building a straw man. I said you TRY. If your effort fails then you have a clear conscience. However if you don't try, you are inhumane and despicable.

I actually think they should have at least given minimal care. I mean, hell a person under cardiac arrest who's been clinically dead for a period of time will still probably get some sort of minimal care

Then you and I (and the mother in the article) are in agreement. They didn't bother to do what they could have. Now... why didn't they?

I stand by my original assessment.

Again, doesn't the last line of the article say it's only 1%...?

I'm in a generous mood tonight.

"If you mean funding problems due to government health care which mandated rationing, then you have simply stated the point that government health care opponents like myself have been talking about all along."

As long as we have insurance bureaucrats making those "rationing" decisions here in the US, it's a moot point.

I find it hard to believe that there isn't some point along the progression through labor at which the administration of drugs to prevent birth will be ineffective.

That is because you don't understand the science behind what is involved. I am to a greater degree than you are because I bothered to ask LOTS of questions at the time. The drug counteracts the hormone, oxytocin, in the mother's system that causes the contractions. They then put the mother on an IV with an antibiotic drip to prevent infection if the water has broken and the cervix is dilated. The can keep this up for days even in hospitals that are little more than a glorified clinic.

However that is besides the point because there is no indication, and some evidence to the contrary, that she too far along to stop labor. As I have shown there was a totally different, and bureaucratic, reason for not stopping labor and giving the corticosteroids.

As long as we have insurance bureaucrats making those "rationing" decisions here in the US, it's a moot point.

Wrong. Insurance companies can be sued if they make the wrong decision... and they know it. It is a much stickier wicket to sue the government when they have a monopoly on the industry... if it is even permitted to do so.

And where was the limited supply in this baby story? You are injecting elements to support your case that quite frankly aren't there.

I'm not injecting shit. Demand for health care is well in excess of supply. Have you been to a hospital lately?

If you mean funding problems due to government health care which mandated rationing, then you have simply stated the point that government health care opponents like myself have been talking about all along. Thanks for your agreement.

These sorts of things happen in the absence of government health care. To act as if a shortage of health care providers and services is some new phenomena exclusive to government run health care plans is dishonest or ignorant. You choose.

No, you are building a straw man. I said you TRY. If your effort fails then you have a clear conscience. However if you don't try, you are inhumane and despicable.

At what point does one stop trying? At some point doctors stop working on cardiac arrest patients and call time of death. These points are set by long experience gained through training, just as the points in these guidelines have been set. Long years and many experiences have provided information to guide these sorts of life and death decisions.

They didn't bother to do what they could have. Now... why didn't they?

Because the aggregate experience of many MANY doctors indicates the time and resources would be better spent on other patients.

I stand by my original assessment.

Which is based on a tabloid news article and pure emotion.

Together those make for a really strong leg to stand on...

"Wrong. Insurance companies can be sued if they make the wrong decision... and they know it."

As if that's stopped them in the past. They know full well they save much more by denying claims than they pay out in "wrong" decisions.

However that is besides the point because there is no indication, and some evidence to the contrary, that she too far along to stop labor.

Bullshit. What evidence? Most of the article is hearsay from the mother who of course is going to give you the "evidence" you'd like to see.

As I have shown there was a totally different, and bureaucratic, reason for not stopping labor and giving the corticosteroids.

All you've shown is a propensity to second guess trained professionals who had all the information. Nothing more.

Again, doesn't the last line of the article say it's only 1%...?

I'm in a generous mood tonight.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2009-09-09 02:13 AM

Yes it does, but I am inclined under the circumstances to give some credence to the second paragraph in the following quote (from another article on this case) concerning those studies like that:

A separate study of 150 babies born in the Trent area at 22 weeks last year found none survived, though latest annual figures record three cases surviving in 2006.

However, the bereaved mothers who have joined Ms Capewell's campaign say that the figures are distorted because they are often refused or discouraged from seeking intensive care for such newborns by doctors.

In regards to the drugs used, do you happen to remember the name of the drug used for your wife?

"Which is based on a tabloid news article "

And not just any tabloid. From Wiki:

"Editorial stance
The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation."

This case could shorten the window of allowable abortions. While on the surface, I wish they would have done everything in their power to save him, I'll reserve judgement until I hear all sides of the story. The Mail has a long history of distorting the truth.

Most of the article is hearsay from the mother who of course is going to give you the "evidence" you'd like to see.

Backed up by many women that have had similar experiences. Or did you miss the part about the website she started and the response it has gotten.

So you think the mother is lying. Not much I can say to that. You make an assumption, I make an assumption. The difference is, my assumption at least has someone saying it was so. Yours is based on nothing but air and imagination.

No arguing with illogical thinking like that.

All you've shown is a propensity to second guess trained professionals who had all the information. Nothing more.

And you think that trained professionals are beyond question. Experience has taught me otherwise. I hope you never have cause to LEARN otherwise.

The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation."

So because you don't agree with a certain ideology that makes them liars? Hrm...

"A separate study of 150 babies born in the Trent area at 22 weeks last year found none survived, though latest annual figures record three cases surviving in 2006."

Huh? You're hanging your hat on a TWO percent rate one year, despite the fact the following year was ZERO percent?

What leads you to stick with 16%...?

"So because you don't agree with a certain ideology that makes them liars?"

No, not at all. Their long history of losing cases based on lies (Hugh Grant, Elton John, FIFA, Mark Lester, Kiera Knightly, Nicole Kidman, Kate Moss, etc) makes me think they're liars, and the fact they're on the record as being strongly anti-abortion, and this could affect those laws, makes me want to hear more before making a judgement. Fair enough?

So you think the mother is lying. Not much I can say to that. You make an assumption, I make an assumption. The difference is, my assumption at least has someone saying it was so. Yours is based on nothing but air and imagination.

LOL by that standard Boob's assumptions have validity. Do you believe in smoke stacks on the moon?

Seriously though (I don't think you're any where close to Bob), I didn't say the mother was lying. It was an emotional, traumatic experience and given the fallibility of human memory it's questionable at best. Just like all those parents who swear their kids became autistic after vaccines-the topic is too emotionally charged to take the participants word at face value.

No arguing with illogical thinking like that.

And yet you're pulling information out of thin air and acting as if there's no way it could be incorrect. NEITHER OF US KNOWS! That's the entire damned point.

And you think that trained professionals are beyond question. Experience has taught me otherwise. I hope you never have cause to LEARN otherwise.

What is it with people and automatically assuming the opposite extreme of what's said?

I never said professionals shouldn't be questioned. Shit, I never even insinuated that. But if you're going to question the judgment of people who are significantly more knowledgeable on a topic than you are, at least have concrete information to base it on. So far you have musings and personal anecdotes, which isn't quite what I have in mind when I think of "concrete"...

And I have learned otherwise-my wife has an unresolved metabolic issue that she's seen several doctors about, all of which have given a different answer.

You're hanging your hat on a TWO percent rate one year, despite the fact the following year was ZERO percent?

I haven't "hung my hat" on anything other than the assertion that there were things the could have done, and even SHOULD have done, to help this baby both before the delivery and after.

You and JPW agreed already that they should have provided care so that isn't the real argument here. The question then becomes "why didn't they do what they should have done"?

LOL by that standard Boob's assumptions have validity. Do you believe in smoke stacks on the moon?

Wrong... I can't point to science to refute BBob (and have done so on many occasions).

You on the other hand have other NOTHING but suppositions. No substance to your arguments other than a string of maybe's (maybe the doctor this... maybe the baby that). It looks like you have more in common with BBob than I do.

"You and JPW agreed already that they should have provided care "

Based on what we know from the article. The whole truth could be radically different.

Wrong... I can't point to science to refute BBob (and have done so on many occasions).

Sure you can. It's easy if you just try.

You on the other hand have other NOTHING but suppositions. No substance to your arguments other than a string of maybe's

Given the lack of information, our arguments have the same validity. You have nothing but assertions based on emotion and anecdotes and give more credence to a woman looking for an international audience that doctors who have spent many years getting to where they are now entirely based on YOUR preconceived notions.

You can act as if you have a greater leg to stand on, but unless you come up with reputable sources giving MUCH more information on the subject, both our arguments are equally valid. Mine just happens to err on the conservative side and yours on the liberal side (does that make you a commie?).

The whole truth could be radically different.

However that is an assumption. It requires you to inject situations that you have provided no reason to assume exist.

Given the lack of information, our arguments have the same validity.

Wrong again. Glad you aren't a jurist.

There is information. Several articles worth of information in fact.

The only lack of information is with information supporting your position. Just because you don't have the information that you wish you had doesn't mean that you can ignore the information that is there. That is a BBob tactic through and through.

"However that is an assumption."

That a paper with an agenda and a history of lying might not be giving the whole story? You're joking, right? You just talked of correlating stories giving your position more weight, and my correlating facts get NO weight?!?

Make up your mind.

There is information. Several articles worth of information in fact.

I haven't read them.

The only lack of information is with information supporting your position. Just because you don't have the information that you wish you had doesn't mean that you can ignore the information that is there.

LOL then post the supporting information you have.

All I've read is the linked article, which is almost entirely composed of hearsay from the mother and sad pictures of her and the baby. An emotion piece through and through.

and my correlating facts get NO weight?!?

You didn't correlate facts in that assumption. You said (and I quote):

"The whole truth could be radically different."

Could. Maybe. Possibly.

Not to be confused with "IS".

Could the situation be radically different? Sure.

Has any evidence been shown to suggest that it IS different? No.

I choose not to assume. Both articles (the one you say is "tabloid" and the other one that isn't) agree on some basic points. No information is provided in either to contradict her version of events. I see no reason then to insert contradictory stories created out of thin air.

"You didn't correlate facts in that assumption."

WTF?!? Read my prior posts. It listed lawsuits The Mail has lost due to its lies.

"Could the situation be radically different? Sure. Has any evidence been shown to suggest that it IS different? No."

So let me get this straight: A long history of proven lying isn't evidence of anything, but a short list of anecdotal evidence IS?

Too ridiculous for words.

I choose not to assume.

And yet you do so precisely with your arguments about drug prolonged labor and such.

Both articles (the one you say is "tabloid" and the other one that isn't) agree on some basic points.

Everything I've been able to find either references the Daily Mail story or uses the same info and quotes from the mother. They're essentially the same story and therefore, add nothing to the weight of your arguments.

No information is provided in either to contradict her version of events.

A hospital or doctor would never publicly discuss a patients file or condition. What makes you think it would here, particularly since they may be preparing for a potential lawsuit?

I see no reason then to insert contradictory stories created out of thin air.

Because the information given supports your conclusions. Of course you won't question it.

I haven't read them.

I guess you can lead a horse to water...

Try my #12 post. Try both links.

which is almost entirely composed of hearsay from the mother and sad pictures of her and the baby.

So you think she is lying despite the fact that the reporter tried contacting the hospital to get their side of the story. Still nothing contradicts her version of events.

Well, I guess you choose what to believe. I tend to take her at her word absent contradicting evidence; you choose to think she is lying based on your... what... intuition?

An emotion piece through and through.

Yeah... all that stuff at the end (you know... the last half of the article) that balances out her story was just meant to ramp up the emotions of the reader. You have a funny idea of what constitutes an emotion piece.

A story like this is GOING to be emotional just by its very nature. I saw nothing to suggest that the reporter went out of their way to make it emotional. To the contrary, the last half of the article seemed designed to dampen and balance the natural emotion of the first half.

And yet you do so precisely with your arguments about drug prolonged labor and such.

No, that information came directly from the article. My personal knowledge of those drugs in a preemie situation gave the accounting gravitas as far as I am concerned. No assumption necessary.

They're essentially the same story and therefore, add nothing to the weight of your arguments.

And yet the weight of "a little" still weighs more than "nothing" which is what you are trying to peddle.

What makes you think it would here, particularly since they may be preparing for a potential lawsuit?

I saw nothing suggesting that she even has a case even assuming the doctors acted exactly as she says. The guidelines were followed and they are considered legal. Again you assume.

Because the information given supports your conclusions. Of course you won't question it.

Conversely I can simply say that you only question it because it doesn't support your conclusions.

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush.

At the end of it all we are left with information that supports my take on the situation, and none that supports yours. No amount of deflection to assumptions of my motives or reasoning from you will change that.

Any way. Thanks for the debate without name calling past comparisons to BBob. Although that IS pretty bad when you think about it. However since we are both guilty of that one I will give it a pass if you do.

Time for me to go to sleep.

Adios peoples!

......the irony........

.....pro-lifers are against a government plan and support the current insurance industry ruled model.....

.....the insurance industry death panels deny coverage to, and kill, (might say murder), more Americans EACH DAY than the 9-11 terrorists did.....

.....yet the pro-lifers support these insurance industry murderers.....

.....almost seems like the first qualifier to be a conservative in this is country is to be deficient of the irony gene......

......the irony........

Yes, I find it quite ironic that you feel twisting opposition to a rationing system by the government (who you have little recourse against) into advocacy of a rationing system by insurance companies (who you definitely have recourse against).

If Dems were simply talking about increasing some regulation to address rationing problems in the current system then I suspect that most of the people against reform would then be for it. I know I would. Instead Dems want to replace the entire system with one that ultimately will have fewer options for addressing rationing issues.

.....the insurance industry death panels deny coverage to, and kill, (might say murder), more Americans EACH DAY than the 9-11 terrorists did.....

I suppose you have evidence to back up this claim? It isn't just hyperbole?

WTF?!? Read my prior posts. It listed lawsuits The Mail has lost due to its lies....

...So let me get this straight: A long history of proven lying isn't evidence of anything, but a short list of anecdotal evidence IS?

1) Irrelevant since the main points of the article in the Daily Mail are mirrored in the Telegraph. You can show a history of lawsuits for the one, but not both.

2) There is a similar history with the National Enquirer. Yet they still nailed John Edwards butt to the wall. You have a right to question the Daily Mail based on their history, however since their article agrees with the Telegraph's story your questions are pretty much pointless for the purpose of claiming the Daily Mail made it up.

3) I find it interesting that this woman's testimony is "anecdotal evidence" that should be dismissed. By that logic, eye witness testimony should not be allowed in court.

4) The fact is, her version of events follows exactly what the guidelines are KNOWN to be in the UK.

5) Even anecdotal evidence carries a higher weight than "maybe", "could", or "possibly".

In addition, to readdress an earlier point, the hospital wouldn't have to violate patient confidentiality to debunk this story. All they would have to do is make a statement as to whether the hospital's policy is to handle cases in this manner or not. They have chosen not to.

" for the purpose of claiming the Daily Mail made it up."

Putting words in my mouth? YOU LOSE.

I claimed it was reason to wait to hear the whole story before making a judgement.

Putting words in my mouth?

Did you have another point to saying this:

"WTF?!? Read my prior posts. It listed lawsuits The Mail has lost due to its lies."

If you weren't trying to claim they were untrustworthy (ie. made it up) then what is the point in bringing this up?

That leaves the question: Do you have similar evidence against the Telegraph that is telling the same story?

It isn't my problem if you don't want to own up to the ramifications of what you say.

I claimed it was reason to wait to hear the whole story before making a judgement.

There is nothing to suggest that there IS more to the story. I suspect that your whole insistence that we wait for "the whole story" is because the story just doesn't fit what is comfortable for you.

This is about a stupid law not universal healthcare.

This is about a stupid law not universal healthcare.

#104 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-09 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Reading and Thinking Impaired

1) It wasn't a law it was a "guideline".

2) The guideline was created FOR the universal health care system in the UK

3) It was an NHS (National Healthcare System) hospital that did this.

4) You are a moron.

"Did you have another point to saying this:"

Yes I did. Reread the last line of #102 as often as you need until you understand.

"There is nothing to suggest that there IS more to the story."

Bulllshit. We don't know the doctor's side, or what condition the baby was in.

"I suspect that your whole insistence that we wait for "the whole story" is because the story just doesn't fit what is comfortable for you."

Whereas I suspect your reluctance, and your insistence on making a judgement without hearing any other points of view, is for that reason.

Bulllshit. We don't know the doctor's side, or what condition the baby was in.

The ladies story is consistent with what IS known.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

I am sorry that this isn't comfortable for you. However it is what it is. The story is consistent with known facts. There is no reason to doubt the story unless evidence can be provided.

1) It wasn't a law it was a "guideline".

2) The guideline was created FOR the universal health care system in the UK

3) It was an NHS (National Healthcare System) hospital that did this.

4) You are a moron.

#105 | Posted by moomanfl

You are the moron. That is besides the point. Guideline or not change the guideline but keep the universal healthcare. Who is to say that an American hospital would have done any better?

Nobody said universal healthcare was perfect but I know our healthcare delivery system sucks too. American insurance companies deny treatment all the time too.

You are the moron. That is besides the point.

Bwahahahaha... you are caught lying ("This is about a stupid law not universal healthcare") and I am supposed to be the moron. I doubt you could be more of a parody if you actually tried.

Keep trying, donkey fluffer.

try claiming I don't know shit about you again. Guideline or law it is a set of rules that were poorly conceived in this case.

Nobody said universal healthcare was perfect but I know our healthcare delivery system sucks too. American insurance companies deny treatment all the time too.

Well then, going by your same logic used in your #109:

Change the regulations governing this, but don't just scrap the system.

"The story is consistent with known facts."

That suggests - and I agree - that ALL the facts are not known.

try claiming I don't know shit about you again.

You don't, other than what I have stated on this blog.

Still pounding that tired old drum I see, donkey fluffer.

That suggests - and I agree - that ALL the facts are not known.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-09 01:17 PM

Enough that you agreed that they should have treated the child. Why you continue to argue this point after agreeing is beyond me. You only contradict yourself.

Just think, a wekk or so more and this poor child would have become a human, right?
As if such things were decided by statute.....

I would say You always error on the side of Life ather than death but that's just Me.

Larry

Just think, a wekk or so more and this poor child would have become a human, right?

Nope... just TWO DAYS. Delivery was at 21 weeks 5 days with 22 weeks being the starting line for treatment.

"Why you continue to argue this point after agreeing is beyond me."

I believe the doctors should have done what they could have. But, as I posted as well, "Based on what we know from the article" (#87). I've also stated it's doubtful we know everything, and therefore refused judgement on the doctors, judgement you seem more than willing to give.

Change the regulations governing this, but don't just scrap the system.

#113 | Posted by moomanfl

Who said scrap the system? Obama already said you can keep your plan if you like it. If not or if you don't like your plan you can use the public option. that isn't scrapping shit that is adding to the current system.

Conversely I can simply say that you only question it because it doesn't support your conclusions.

I don't disagree with that. I've made it known that I work as a biomedical researcher, so yeah, I tend to be a biased voice in those sorts of matters.

At the end of it all we are left with information that supports my take on the situation, and none that supports yours. No amount of deflection to assumptions of my motives or reasoning from you will change that.

But the quality and onesidedness of the information is what I question.

Any way. Thanks for the debate without name calling past comparisons to BBob. Although that IS pretty bad when you think about it. However since we are both guilty of that one I will give it a pass if you do.

LOL yeah I deserved it. Although I did it initially as a poor attempt to inject some humor and did say I didn't think you were anywhere close to BBob (Seriously though (I don't think you're any where close to Bob)).

Conversely I can simply say that you only question it because it doesn't support your conclusions.

I don't disagree with that. I've made it known that I work as a biomedical researcher, so yeah, I tend to be a biased voice in those sorts of matters.

At the end of it all we are left with information that supports my take on the situation, and none that supports yours. No amount of deflection to assumptions of my motives or reasoning from you will change that.

But the quality and onesidedness of the information is what I question.

Any way. Thanks for the debate without name calling past comparisons to BBob. Although that IS pretty bad when you think about it. However since we are both guilty of that one I will give it a pass if you do.

LOL yeah I deserved it. Although I did it initially as a poor attempt to inject some humor and did say I didn't think you were anywhere close to BBob (Seriously though (I don't think you're any where close to Bob)).

sorry for the double post

Wow just noticed sommat.

The google ad at the top of this page right now is fer some non-fart baby formula which in and of itself is nothing much but the juxtapositioning of the baby-with-the-shit-eating-grin on his face pic directly beneath the headline "Just Kill Him" is kinda weirding Spud out.

Be Well.

Danforth,

The problem I have is that you seem intent on violating Occam's Razor by inserting hypothetical situations that aren't necessary. Consider the following:

1) Guidlines state that there be no treatment under 22 weeks.

2) Baby is born under 22 weeks.

3) Baby is not treated.

4) Baby dies.

The above situation fits all known facts and is perfectly legal under the system in the UK. The mother is pressing for the change of regulations. No mention is made of a lawsuit for wrongful death or wrongfully withholding treatment.

The simplest answer is the most likely.

"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things
God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be
partners with them." - Ephesians 5:6-7

I don't disagree with that. I've made it known that I work as a biomedical researcher, so yeah, I tend to be a biased voice in those sorts of matters.

Duly noted. Thanks for the honesty.

But the quality and onesidedness of the information is what I question.

I will simply point, once again, to Occam's Razor. Her story is consistent with known facts. The simplest answer, however uncomfortable it is, is the most likely.

LOL yeah I deserved it. Although I did it initially as a poor attempt to inject some humor and did say I didn't think you were anywhere close to BBob (Seriously though (I don't think you're any where close to Bob)).

And with that you provide absolute, and incontrovertible, proof that you aren't anywhere close to BBob either.

"The problem I have is..."

...you are willing to pass judgment while only having one side of the story. You've admitted not all facts are necessarily known.

"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things
God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be
partners with them." - Ephesians 5:6-7

Good advice. Which is exactly why you don't deceive me and I would never be "partners" with you.

You've admitted not all facts are necessarily known.

No, you twist what I say. I said that her story is consistent with the known facts and absent contradicting evidence (which may not even exist) I see no reason to doubt her.

Again I refer you to Occam's Razor.

"I will simply point, once again, to Occam's Razor. "

Too rich. Occam's Razor suggests ALL facts to be known before concluding.

I have a little more advice mooman

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you
will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -
Matthew 7:5

"(which may not even exist)"

Ahhh, so you admit it may. Yet you're willing to pass judgement without hearing the doctors' version or explanation.

Too rich. Occam's Razor suggests ALL facts to be known before concluding.

No it doesn't. It simply says: "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"

Or to paraphrase: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

In other words, the simpler answer is the most likely.

We both agree that the child died. Her story is consistent with known facts and needs no additional elements to be true. However you insist on adding "entities" that aren't necessary simply because the story as told isn't comfortable for you.

You are violating Occam's Razor by adding elements unnecessarily to reach the same conclusion where there is no evidence that those elements even exist.

Ahhh, so you admit it may.

Yes, I also admit that pixies may exist, but I have no reason to believe they do.

I have a little more advice mooman

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you
will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -
Matthew 7:5

#133 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-09 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Extreme Irony

Wow just noticed sommat.

The google ad at the top of this page right now is fer some non-fart baby formula...

#125 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-09-09 01:28 PM | Reply

It's called "targeted" advertising. Seeing as though you don't have children, I wonder what you've been looking at that...Well, not really.

#133 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-09 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Extreme Irony

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-09 01:49 PM | Reply

You fucking a Right dude. AMEN on THAT one in triplicate.

Larry

""when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions"

Let me know when the two competing theories make exactly the same predictions.

"In other words, the simpler answer is the most likely."

The simple answer is, you don't know the doctors' version.

"We both agree that the child died."

We don't know why, or what condition the baby was in, or what the doctors saw that they haven't yet said.

"However you insist on adding "entities" that aren't necessary simply because the story as told isn't comfortable for you."

You're an idiot. You somehow believe getting the physicians' side of the story before passing judgement is 'adding an entity'. That's not logic, that's obstinance. I'm done with you.

Arguing in this place day after day makes you feel like a piece of gum stuck in a taffy pulling machine.

Let me know when the two competing theories make exactly the same predictions.

The outcome ("prediction") is incontrovertible: the wasn't treated and died.

We both agree on this, unless you want to resort to claims that she never had the child, or that the child was treated, or that the child is alive.

The only contest is in the circumstances surrounding the death.

Her story is consistent with known facts and needs no additional elements to be true. However you insist on adding "entities" that aren't necessary simply because the story as told isn't comfortable for you.

You are violating Occam's Razor by adding elements unnecessarily to reach the same conclusion where there is no evidence that those elements even exist.

"The only contest is in the circumstances surrounding the death."

So you admit you don't know all the facts regarding the circumstances.

"You are violating Occam's Razor"

You're misunderstanding the concept behind Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply in this instance.

"Her story is consistent with known facts "

Yes or no, do you believe ALL facts are known?

Should have read:

"The outcome ("prediction") is incontrovertible: the child wasn't treated and died."

If the doctor came forward with a different story I would evaluate that evidence and revise my opinion where necessary. However, as things stand there is no reason to insert a different story that may not even exist, and no reason to doubt her story which is consistent with known facts.

Sorry man, but you aren't going to beat Occam's Razor simply by repeating the same illogical argument over and over.

You're misunderstanding the concept behind Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply in this instance.

No... you are supposing the doctor has a story different from hers. I don't suppose that.

I refuse to unnecessarily add elements to the story based on supposition and thereby violating Occam's Razor.

"you are supposing the doctor has a story different from hers. I don't suppose that."

NO I DON'T. I'm reserving judgement until I hear their side. You're not.

"If the doctor came forward with a different story I would evaluate that evidence and revise my opinion where necessary."

Too late. You've already passed judgement.

"you aren't going to beat Occam's Razor"

You don't know what you're talking about. O.R. has NOTHING to do with this case.

BTW... your idea that Occam's Razor only applies to situations where are the facts are known is bullshit.

If all facts are known then Occam's Razor doesn't apply. You can't violate Occam's Razor by adding facts when all the facts are known. Occam's Razor specifically deals with situations where all the facts aren't necessarily known.

NO I DON'T. I'm reserving judgement until I hear their side. You're not.

That is funny since you said this:

I think they should have tried everything to save it.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-09 01:09 AM

Like I said. Her story is consistent with known facts. It needs no other elements to be true. Even if the doctor came forward today there is no reason to believe that the story would be any different.

The simplest answer is the most likely. Provide evidence of a contradicting story and I will revise my opinion.

It's quite obvious from the posts above who places the appropriate value on life on the DR. Those of you who are parents and still debate whether care for the infant should have been administered or not - I do not even know how to relate to your point of view. Maybe ZAT is correct in assuming extinction is coming. With the lack of respect for life that the left continues to foster we most certainly are on a path - well at least the left is.

& life after life we go gathering every possible experience as Soul...leading to realities far beyond 'onlybegottenism'

This story has nothing to do with national health care vs. private health care, as the story itself makes clear:

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain. ...

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive

In the U.S., many hospitals won't attempt to treat babies born after 22 weeks either because the chances of survival are so tragically low that the treatments are viewed as prolonging suffering.

Even if the line moves from 22 weeks to 21 weeks, there's going to be another sad case like this of a baby born at 20 weeks and 5 days who doesn't get treatment.

If there's no line at all, hospitals will spend billions on these preemies and almost none will survive. You can argue that it's wrong to consider monetary issues at all when a baby's life is at stake, but we live in the real world where a hospital's resources are finite. That means judgment calls have to be made in extremely hard cases like this one.

#151 | Posted by rcade

I don't want to live in a society where we have governent decide that it's 'too expensive' to try and preserve human life.

As a parent, I would put up a HUGE fight if I had a preemie and government told me that its odds of survival aren't high enough to try and preserve its life.

"I don't want to live in a society where we have governent decide that it's 'too expensive' to try and preserve human life. "

Well, you know the door.

Otherwise, how much are you willing to have your taxes increase to ensure that?

As a parent, I would put up a HUGE fight if I had a preemie and government told me that its odds of survival aren't high enough to try and preserve its life.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-09-09 03:54 PM | Reply

Don't we already have that now through private insurance?? I mean Hospitals keep the patient until the Insurance Company cuts off the tap and somehow the patient is either deemed fit as a fiddle or they stop taking care of the patient and the patient dies. Same shit different pew

Larry

I don't want to live in a society where we have governent decide that it's 'too expensive' to try and preserve human life.

The decision's already being made today by medical practitioners and insurers. So it's not like the lack of government involvement means these preemies are being treated regardless of gestational age.

Well, you know the door.

Otherwise, how much are you willing to have your taxes increase to ensure that?

#153 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-09 03:57 PM

Why do we need the door? Government run health care is not the reality yet. Since we aren't the ones trying to change the system, I would say that if YOU don't like it and want the government to make those decisions, then YOU know the door.

The reality is a little messier as reality tends to be. One side wants to make changes that the other feels will lead to the government having an increased power over the life and death of ordinary citizens that it shouldn't have. Others either don't believe it the changes will result in that situation, others don't care if it will.

One side fights for the government health care and the other fights against it.

No door necessary, it is just business as usual in our system of government. Things are able to be changed and sometimes even get changed back later.

The retorts of "there's the door" are a small argument from small and totalitarian minds.

BTW... in case you want to try and say that last post was a self-retort based on the first paragraph, let me clarify that the first paragraph was simply to point out that ill-thought-out comments like "you know the door" cut both ways. This is especially true when the person saying this is advocating a policy that isn't even a reality yet.

"Why do we need the door?"

What part of "I don't want to live in a society..." don't you understand?

"One side wants to make changes that the other feels will lead to the government having an increased power over the life and death of ordinary citizens that it shouldn't have."

That's because "the other side" refuses to admit insurance companies already have that power.

"The retorts of "there's the door" are a small argument from small and totalitarian minds."

Whereas it takes a tiny, tiny mind not to understand the phrase "I don't want to live in a society..."

What part of "I don't want to live in a society..." don't you understand?

I understand that comment well. However since this society isn't currently the type the speaker says they don't want to live in, and there is no guarantee that it even will be, there is no need for the door.

Said speaker also has the right to fight to keep this society from becoming the one he doesn't want to live in.

Trying to "show the door" to the speaker prematurely is infantile and smacks of a totalitarian philosophy (ie. my way or the highway).

"I understand that comment well."

Then feel free to answer the question. How much are you willing to see your taxes increase to ensure government never "decides that it's 'too expensive' to try and preserve human life."

And keep in mind, the baby boomers are about to retire, and the payer to user ratio is going from 6-1 to closer to 3-1. How much more are you willing to be taxed?

How much are you willing to see your taxes increase to ensure government never "decides that it's 'too expensive' to try and preserve human life."

You have to get government run health care passed first for your question to be relevant. Talk to me again once you have that accomplished.

"You have to get government run health care passed first for your question to be relevant."

Flag: / Never heard of Medicare

Flag: / Never heard of Medicare

Medicare supports only a portion of the population as does Medicaid.

Raising taxes enough to cover the incoming Baby Boomers under the existing system is quite a bit different than raising taxes enough to cover EVERYONE under a new system. Add on to that the expanded government powers over the lives of the common citizen, and I kindly keep pushing to make sure this idea of universal health care never comes to pass.

"Raising taxes enough to cover the incoming Baby Boomers under the existing system is quite a bit different than raising taxes enough to cover EVERYONE under a new system"

And when in life do you think the majority of the health care expenses hit? Before 65, or after 65? When do you think most of these 'damn the costs, full speed ahead' decisions are made? So again...how much more are you willing to be taxed to make sure every elderly person gets every procedure she or he wants?

"I kindly keep pushing to make sure this idea of universal health care never comes to pass."

And how do you propose lowering the percentage of GDP spent on health care?

This story has nothing to do with national health care vs. private health care, as the story itself makes clear:

Not any more than a British civics lesson is about Monarchy vs. Democratic Republic. That particular discussion only comes when you take the lesson and start comparing it to US civics.

Likewise this story which highlights an aspect of the British NHS can be used to compare and contrast with our current system. In that context, this article does serve a purpose in the debate.

In the U.S., many hospitals won't attempt to treat babies born after 22 weeks either because the chances of survival are so tragically low that the treatments are viewed as prolonging suffering.

Once the baby is born, yes. However at 21 weeks and 5 days, I dare say most hospitals in the US would have stopped labor and treated with corticosteroids to accelerate lung development first which would have put the baby over the 22 week birth deadline. The British system in question doesn't allow for that below 22 weeks. Your line of reasoning is a non sequitur as you are comparing apples to oranges in this case.

It is one thing to say "we tried but failed", it is quite another not to even try.

The decision's already being made today by medical practitioners and insurers.

Yes, but with medical practitioners you can go to a different one if you don't like what they want to do. You can also shop around before hand to find what their policies are and pick that suits you the best.

With private insurance you have recourse. They are subject to law and regulations. If you don't like what they do, you can either change insurances or even sue. If that doesn't provide satisfaction you can go over their heads to the government to get regulations changed.

However with government run health care, the entity that is supposed to be the watch dog for the people is actually also the provider. The highest authority is the one that set the policy in the first place if you find a practice you think isn't fair.

It is a conflict of interests to have the government run health care, and is a bad situation under which to try and maintain freedom and basic humane rights.

And when in life do you think the majority of the health care expenses hit? Before 65, or after 65?

That is a deflection.

1) On taxes I already said that raising them enough to cover the Baby Boomers under the current system is preferable to forcing everyone onto government health care (either explicitly or implicitly) and raising taxes to cover everyone.

2) Even over 65 there are supplemental private insurances that are designed to cover what Medicare either doesn't, or doesn't cover enough of.

3) The article in question wasn't about a person dealing with problems of the elderly. (Although there are articles talking about those problems in the UK too). Instead it was dealing with a young mother trying to get help for her newborn. That isn't a Medicare, or even necessarily a Medicaid issue.

And how do you propose lowering the percentage of GDP spent on health care?

I don't. I say reduce government spending in other areas. It is the price of freedom and choice.

"with medical practitioners you can go to a different one if you don't like what they want to do"

Most areas have only a small handful of choices for insurance.

"It is a conflict of interests to have the government run health care,"

And it's not for the insurers?!? You're joking, right?

"That is a deflection."

If you think that, you don't understand the problem. Health care is going to get more and more expensive, with less and less payers paying for more and more users.

"I already said that raising (taxes) enough to cover the Baby Boomers under the current system is preferable"

But you didn't answer the question: How much would you be willing for your taxes to rise?

"Even over 65 there are supplemental private insurances that are designed to cover what Medicare either doesn't, or doesn't cover enough of."

Medicare covers about half; supplemental plans, and the patient the other half. Supplemental plans aren't the answer; the costs are just too high.

"The article in question wasn't about a person dealing with problems of the elderly"

But if "damn the costs, full speed ahead" is going to be your mantra, the vast majority of the patients will be the elderly. You're avoiding the overarching issue.

"I say reduce government spending in other areas."

Like what, specifically? Keep in mind you're going to need about 5%-10% of GDP.

Yes, but with medical practitioners you can go to a different one if you don't like what they want to do.

Not if you have insurance. You're stuck with what the insurance is willing to cover, and I guarantee you there's a cut-off line for preemies that insurance won't cover.

Opponents of government-run health care never talk about all the decisions forced on us by insurers. There's precious little free choice in the system as it is.

Opponents of government-run health care never talk about all the decisions forced on us by insurers. There's precious little free choice in the system as it is.

But it's STILL vastly more free than a government-run system.

Most areas have only a small handful of choices for insurance.

I know, however opening interstate commerce in the insurance industry would increase choice and competition without having the government run health care. You know, guaranteeing interstate commerce was the original purpose of the Commerce Clause. It would be nice seeing the government use a power it has already rather than trying to give itself new ones.

And it's not for the insurers?!? You're joking, right?

No. The insurers don't make the regulations of the industry. That job belongs to the State and Federal Governments. By replacing the insurance industry with the same people that make the regulations you are simply letting the fox guard the chickens.

If you think that, you don't understand the problem.

No... YOU don't understand the problem. Sound like a cop-out answer? That is because it is, even when YOU do it.

All you did with that answer was say "nuh uh!".

No matter how expensive it gets, it will never be as expensive as paying for 100% of the population.

Supplemental plans aren't the answer; the costs are just too high.

Sorry, but nationalizing health care isn't the only answer even if it is the only one some people want to look at. Opening interstate commerce to the insurance industry would help drive down costs and make it affordable through choice and competition. It would also help the insurance companies with risk distribution by increasing the available customer base.

But if "damn the costs, full speed ahead" is going to be your mantra, the vast majority of the patients will be the elderly.

You are deflecting because you lost the other argument. I simply don't agree that nationalizing is the only option to solve the problem. I also don't agree with the false dichotomy of "nationalize or costs will get out of hand". The fact is, as I said before, no matter how elderly you have, it will never be 100% of the population which is what it would be under a nationalized system. Either way you wind up with taxes raised to support the same amount of elderly, only under nationalized care you are then also raising taxes even further to cover everyone else too.

Like what, specifically? Keep in mind you're going to need about 5%-10% of GDP.

Defense... not all but some.
Ban earmarks.
Line item veto would go a long way to providing a check on Congress.
Cap the pay of Congress and restrict raises to a simple inflation increase.

Those don't cover all of it, but it is a start. To really cut costs would have to be a bi-partisan effort and would take a bit more than just some ideas from an obscure blog site. Lets face it though, some people won't even consider it enough to come up with serious and feasible ideas because it doesn't nationalize things like they want.

What would you, in all seriousness cut back on if you were left with no choice? Or are you one of the ones that wouldn't even try?

Not if you have insurance. You're stuck with what the insurance is willing to cover...

You are assuming strict HMO coverage. PPO's (my personal choice) is much more flexible in that regard.

and I guarantee you there's a cut-off line for preemies that insurance won't cover.

Again that depends on the insurance you have. Nationalizing health care should not be a substitute for being informed of your choices and choosing wisely.

Also, as I have already said, if you don't feel there are enough affordable choices, try opening interstate commerce for insurance. Competition and a wider risk pool to spread out costs would do wonders for increasing services and affordability.

Opponents of government-run health care never talk about all the decisions forced on us by insurers.

Agreed that the industry shouldn't be given a free pass on their culpability, however it is disingenuous to paint government as somehow being above or even better than them. As I said, it is a case of the fox guarding the chickens when you nationalize, rather than the government being the watchdog keeping things fair. Nationalizing is a path to conflict of interests.

Don't like aspects of the system, try to get those fixed. But you don't replace the entire engine just to fix a piston and some spark plugs.

But it's STILL vastly more free than a government-run system.

We're not going to drop private insurance and adopt a single-player government-run system. At most, there will be a public option that people can choose if they don't want or can't get private insurance.

How are we less free if we have more options? If private insurance is better, people will stick with it.

Nationalizing health care should not be a substitute for being informed of your choices and choosing wisely.

A lot of us don't have a choice. I'm on COBRA right now and will be lucky next July if I can find an insurer willing to take my family on.

We're not going to drop private insurance and adopt a single-player government-run system. At most, there will be a public option that people can choose if they don't want or can't get private insurance.

How are we less free if we have more options? If private insurance is better, people will stick with it.

Oh gee, let's see....

Private insurance = I pay for my coverage

Public option = YOU pay for my coverage

That rhetoric of providing additional 'choice and competition' is getting really old.

A lot of us don't have a choice. I'm on COBRA right now and will be lucky next July if I can find an insurer willing to take my family on.

Then make changes to the system specific to people who are falling through the cracks and leave the rest alone.

We're not going to drop private insurance and adopt a single-player government-run system.

Yes, that is the talking point. FactCheck.org seems to think it could be different:

Keep Your Insurance? Not Everyone.
Obama's claim depends on what employers would likely do under several legislative scenarios.

Private insurance = I pay for my coverage Public option = YOU pay for my coverage

Private insurance is more expensive and offers less service in the U.S. than almost anywhere else in the Western world.

The lack of private insurance for millions puts them into the ER, which is the most expensive form of care, and taxpayers foot the bill.

You're already paying for the uninsured.

Then make changes to the system specific to people who are falling through the cracks and leave the rest alone.

How do you propose doing that without a public option?

and offers less service in the U.S. than almost anywhere else in the Western world.

I think the lady (and others like her) in the article above as well as the families of the elderly on the other thread would disagree with this.

and offers less service in the U.S. than almost anywhere else in the Western world.

Which makes expanding medicaid preferable to cover more of those that can't afford it, and increase regulations and open interstate commerce to handle those that can't get coverage currently due to risks. There are other options that have been mentioned that can be tacked on to this. You would have to have been a hermit in a cave in just the past 6 months to have missed hearing about them... or maybe just living in an echo chamber. However it is no reason to nationalize it for the rest of us.

How do you propose doing that without a public option?

"How are we less free if we have more options? "

Jeff's desiccated vision of "freedom" means slavery to the insurance, medical and pharmaceutical industries.

Ok.. on that last post I got the quotes I was addressing a little mixed, but I am sure you can figure out what I meant.

Jeff's desiccated vision of "freedom" means slavery to the insurance, medical and pharmaceutical industries.

Ahhh yes... hyperbole always makes for a more convincing argument, right Null-n-Void?

Nobody is a slave to the insurance, medical, and industries', also their grip can be loosened much easier than the governments could be.

"their grip can be loosened much easier than the governments could be."

Yeah! Let's vote them out of office!

Private insurance = I pay for my coverage

Public option = YOU pay for my coverage

#174 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-09-09 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't get it

Private insurance = You pay for your coverage, and you pay for everyone elses coverage when they go to the emergency room.

Public option = Everybody pays---your rates go down

FTFY

You don't know shit about the rates ans you know they will be lower.

Retards

Yeah! Let's vote them out of office!

Good luck with that. I have been rooting for that for a while. Easier (and preferable in my opinion) just to avoid giving them the power in the first place.

Retards

#184 | Posted by eberly at 2009-09-09 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Works in the insurance industry 8 hours a day, shills for it 24.

I don't know their rates. If you know them then please post them

"opening interstate commerce in the insurance industry would increase choice and competition without having the government run health care."

But then you have disputes going to far away state courts, and companies will leverage that fact into shittier service.

"By replacing the insurance industry with the same people that make the regulations you are simply letting the fox guard the chickens."

You're missing the big picture. As it is, the people making the decisions have a vested interest in denial.

"No... YOU don't understand the problem. Sound like a cop-out answer? That is because it is, even when YOU do it."

All due respect, I've been studying this problem for over a decade. You're a rookie who doesn't have a clue.

"No matter how expensive it gets, it will never be as expensive as paying for 100% of the population."

Socialistic countries that pay a lower % of their GDP, cover a larger % of the populace, and effect better overall health outcomes tell us you're full of shit.

"nationalizing health care isn't the only answer even if it is the only one some people want to look at."

Yet you haven't offered a single sensible alternative.

"Opening interstate commerce to the insurance industry would help drive down costs"

That might be true, if we had more than a small handful of insurers.

"It would also help the insurance companies with risk distribution by increasing the available customer base."

Sure...if by "help the insurance companies" you mean help them cherry-pick from more clients.

But if "damn the costs, full speed ahead" is going to be your mantra, the vast majority of the patients will be the elderly.
"You are deflecting because you lost the other argument."

You're an idiot. I didn't lose anything. In 'the other argument', you let your own personal experience cloud your conclusions, and passed judgement without having all the facts. You even wrongly invoked Occam's Razor when it had nothing to do with the situation.

"I simply don't agree that nationalizing is the only option to solve the problem."

Nor do I, but you haven't given any rational alternatives.

"I also don't agree with the false dichotomy of "nationalize or costs will get out of hand""

Then you have no sense of history, either.

"no matter how elderly you have, it will never be 100% of the population which is what it would be under a nationalized system."

WTF are you talking about?

"(Cut) Defense... not all but some."

Okay...that's a start.

"Ban earmarks."

Earmarks are a tiny percentage, and not all are as bad as the rap they get.

"Line item veto..."

Ruled Unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

"Cap the pay of Congress and restrict raises to a simple inflation increase."

Such a miniscule amount as to be laughable.

"What would you, in all seriousness cut back on if you were left with no choice?"

Defense, insurance company profits, and malpractice. And I'd have the President start every speech with "what exercise did you do today?"

But then you have disputes going to far away state courts, and companies will leverage that fact into shittier service.

What makes you think that? That isn't the way it works with most other companies that get sued from an interstate claim. Usually you go by point of sale.

"Usually you go by point of sale."

And they can't sell across state lines?

Bah... hit enter too fast. Now for the rest of the points:

You're missing the big picture. As it is, the people making the decisions have a vested interest in denial.

No... YOU are missing the big picture. They may have a vested interest in denial, but they don't make the laws and governing regulations. However if you give the industry to the government then the highest authority, the one that makes the rules and regulations, has the vested interest in denial.

I would rather have the vested interest rest with the insurance companies and still have a higher authority to appeal to in order to force reform when/if necessary.

All due respect, I've been studying this problem for over a decade.

All due respect, then you have no excuse for the mistakes you are making. Nice try at an Appeal to Authority fallacy though. It was a good textbook example.

That might be true, if we had more than a small handful of insurers.

In any given area that is true. However when you count in the regional or local companies that would then be opened up for interstate business the number grows. I would also cut costs for the larger insurers that have to maintain companies, standards, and plans for each State they do business in.

Sure...if by "help the insurance companies" you mean help them cherry-pick from more clients.

LOL... assuming again I see. No, what I meant is being able to spread risks over more than just customers in a particular State. It would make it easier to form risk pools with a wide dispersal that would allow them to take in higher risk customers and still maintain a sufficient income to payout ratio.

You're an idiot. I didn't lose anything.

Of course not. /sarcasm Still waiting on evidence to support your position, or at least one source that says Occam's Razor only applies when you already have all the facts.

Nor do I, but you haven't given any rational alternatives.

After your take on Occam's Razor, and your logic that seems to think adding unnecessary elements to an argument somehow makes it a better argument than a simpler explanation... pardon me if I don't hold you up as being a good authority on what is "rational".

WTF are you talking about?

Easy. You say we need to nationalize because the Baby Boomers are coming and it will be too expensive if we don't. If we raise taxes just enough to cover the increase on Medicare, then we are only paying out for a portion of the population. However we would have to raise taxes much more to pay for 100% of the population if you nationalize. Your bullshit argument that somehow nationalizing will lower the cost is not only bullshit from a common sense point of view, but the CBO also said it was bullshit.

Ruled Unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Which would be overruled and valid if it were done as an amendment to the Constitution.

insurance company profits

So you think that a 15.8% net profit margin is unreasonable? What country (or better yet what planet) are you from?

And they can't sell across state lines?

#190 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-09 11:40 PM

Sorry, but many industries operate across state lines. I don't see a single reason why the insurance industry can't do the same.

"They may have a vested interest in denial, but they don't make the laws and governing regulations. "

So? Their paycheck depends, indirectly, on how much they deny.

"when you count in the regional or local companies that would then be opened up for interstate business the number grows."

As soon as a handful of companies decide they can't afford offices all over the country, you're back to square one.

"Nice try at an Appeal to Authority fallacy though."

I guess you'd rather stick with your Appeal to Ignorance.

"assuming again I see."

No, taking from history. Relying on ignorance of the subject again I see.

"It would make it easier to form risk pools with a wide dispersal"

They cherry-pick now. Nothing you're suggesting would change that.

"or at least one source that says Occam's Razor only applies when you already have all the facts."

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it, and isn't applicable. It just means O.R. is another concept you misunderstand.

"pardon me if I don't hold you up as being a good authority on what is "rational"."

Translation: I still don't have anything rational, but I won't admit it.

"we would have to raise taxes much more to pay for 100% of the population if you nationalize'

You're taking one piece of the puzzle, and claiming you see the whole picture. Not unlike the earlier argument you lost when you were willing to pass judgement with only one side being heard. The ideal is to spend a lower % of GDP on health care. If we don't do that, we've failed.

"Which would be overruled and valid if it were done as an amendment to the Constitution."

Gee...talk about throwing unlikely bullshit into the mix....

"So you think that a 15.8% net profit margin is unreasonable?"

When the government is on the hook for it, and profits have quadrupled while coverage has shrunk?!? YES. Why do you value insurance industry profits over American citizens' health?

"I don't see a single reason why the insurance industry can't (operate across state lines)".

"...if an insurance company can offer cheap premiums to entice low-risk people from all over the country, they're that much less likely to continue offering any type of insurance to higher-risk individuals. What this means is, it's more likely that insurers will be encouraged to underwrite more and more aggressively, with cheaper premiums for those who qualify as low-risk. But those cheaper policies will provide increasingly skimpy coverage, meaning that people who prefer more comprehensive policies - as well as high-risk individuals - will find fewer companies are willing to offer the insurance they need."

Sorry, but many industries operate across state lines. I don't see a single reason why the insurance industry can't do the same.

#192 | Posted by moomanfl

Because the gov't regulated the industry to not be able to sell across state lines.

This is truly sad for the mother and her baby.

And folks here don't think it possible under the gov't plan that this sort of thing would happen in the US?

With people like Ezekial Emmanuel bending the Obama ears with his comparative life bullshit--we would sure as true blue get this treatment and worse under any gov't plan here in the US.

True, Murphy. If that happened here the mother would have sued them up and down Mt. Rushmore.

So? Their paycheck depends, indirectly, on how much they deny.

Which can be regulated if the government cared too by setting rules restricting what constitutes a legal basis for denial. You know... the kind of regulation they do all the time for many industries.

As soon as a handful of companies decide they can't afford offices all over the country, you're back to square one.

My word, you are an obtuse one aren't you. There is no need for offices all over the country. Opening the gates for interstate commerce in insurance would allow companies to do business via the internet. Hell even with my insurance under the current State-by-State system I have never once stepped foot in their offices.

Once again you are making assumptions that don't stand up to critical analysis and logic. Par for the course with you it seems.

I guess you'd rather stick with your Appeal to Ignorance.

No, that would only be if I relied on you as a source.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it

Sure... keep telling yourself that.

Translation: I still don't have anything rational, but I won't admit it.

Translation: I can't admit that this was the weakest argument I have ever come up with.... well, besides that whole "Occam's Razor only works when you have ALL the facts" thing.

The ideal is to spend a lower % of GDP on health care. If we don't do that, we've failed.

Bullshit. What matters over all is the amount of the GDP spent PERIOD. Over all expenditures. The only reason to concentrate on health care is that you don't want to have to cut anything else.

Never mind that the CBO has already stated that this won't do it. On the contrary it is going to increase.

Gee...talk about throwing unlikely bullshit into the mix....

About as unlikely as this universal health care idea, or a second Obama term, looks at this time.

Why do you value insurance industry profits over American citizens' health?

Because health insurance isn't a right. A no time in our countries founding did the framers of the Constitution think it was a good idea for the government to be running a business or telling a business how much it could make.

So you don't like the fact that they make a profit. Cry me a fucking river. Their profits aren't at an unreasonable margin. Profits for insurance companies have hardly quadrupled... as a matter of fact they have shrunk a bit over the last few years. They were making a higher margin back in the earlier part of the decade.

Because the gov't regulated the industry to not be able to sell across state lines.

I was aware of that, Murphy. That was the point of discussion. I was speaking in context of if the government opened the industry up for interstate commerce. Danforth was claiming it wouldn't work for that industry even then. I disagree.

...if an insurance company can offer cheap premiums to entice low-risk people from all over the country, they're that much less likely to continue offering any type of insurance to higher-risk individuals.

Which can easily be fixed by mandating a "risk pool" as part of the Federal insurance requirements.

All this crap has been addressed before. You aren't bringing up a single objection that hasn't been raised and already had a solution offered to solve.

Which can be regulated if the government cared too by setting rules restricting what constitutes a legal basis for denial.

In which case you still have govt controlling what healthcare one gets. How's that different or more efficient than a govt insurance plan?

"besides that whole "Occam's Razor "

You have turned O.R. on it's head, trying to use it where it's not applicable. You obviously have no concept what it means, especially since you continue to bring it up.

"A no time in our countries founding did the framers of the Constitution think it was a good idea for the government to be running a business or telling a business how much it could make."

Nor did they envision Medicare. Do you actually have a point?

"What matters over all is the amount of the GDP spent PERIOD"

Good God, you're stupid.

Moomanfl and Danforth,
I admire your stamina

Moomanfl and Danforth,
I admire your stamina

#203 | Posted by bruceaz

OK that's enough for you tonite Bruce say goodnight

Gimme,I just got here and they were still argueing when I went to bed last night.That's stamina.

In which case you still have govt controlling what healthcare one gets. How's that different or more efficient than a govt insurance plan?

You obviously don't understand the difference between "regulation" and "nationalization" if you think they are the same.

You have turned O.R. on it's head, trying to use it where it's not applicable.

So you keep saying, without one source to back up your idea of how it should (or in this case shouldn't) be used. ie. Only when all the facts are known.

I call bullshit on your assertion.

Nor did they envision Medicare. Do you actually have a point?

So what? They also didn't foresee a Department of Homeland Security, or Kelo v. City of New London, or The Patriot Act. Does that mean they were all good ideas just because we have them now? Does that mean that there weren't better ways to solve the problems?

My God, you're stupid.

Good God, you're stupid.

So, hypothetically, if we cut ever other bit of spending except health care as it currently is are you trying to say that wouldn't be an improvement?

Like I said, reduce spending in other areas. There is a price for freedom. I don't want government running yet another industry... never mind one that controls my access to health care.

"I call bullshit on your assertion."

Then post the definition for Occam's Razor, and explain how it applies.

"My God, you're stupid."

Gee, right after I said it. The internet equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I".

I come here for the comedy.

Moomanfl and Danforth,
I admire your stamina

#203 | Posted by bruceaz at 2009-09-10 12:32 AM

Thanks.

Danforth and I argue heatedly, and sometimes viciously, but I believe at heart he is a good person that means well. Unlike with RastaJack the AssNinja, I actually WOULD meet Danforth and have a beer with him. As long as he agreed in advance not to discuss politics while we were within striking distance. Heh heh.

Then post the definition for Occam's Razor, and explain how it applies.

I already did that a good while back. Use your PgUp key. Or use Ctrl-F and search for "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" (the original wording of Occam's Razor).

Gee, right after I said it. The internet equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I".

I come here for the comedy.

Yeah, I laughed when you said it too, so I thought I would throw that in for shits and giggles.

"I already did that a good while back"

O.R. is most commonly used when there are competing theories, as in "the towers were brought down by a massive conspiracy and explosions" vs "the towers were brought down by large planes that crashed into them."

In this case, we have...what two competing theories?

O.R. is most commonly used when there are competing theories

There are.

Theory #1

1) Guidlines state that there be no treatment under 22 weeks.

2) Baby is born under 22 weeks.

3) Baby is not treated.

4) Baby dies.

Theory #2

1) Guidlines state that there be no treatment under 22 weeks.

2) Baby is born under 22 weeks.

3) Doctor finds some condition that prevents treatment.

4) Baby is not treated.

5) Baby dies.

That is a paraphrase of the two cases. Now to be fair, you don't state that Theory #2 is necessarily true, but you do insist that we take it into consideration. However since the situation is adequately explained by Theory #1 (and indeed is testified to by the mother) and Theory #2 assumes an additional element to the story with no evidence to presuppose it, Occam's Razor says that the simpler theory is the most likely. That would be Theory #1.

Danforth,

Upon further thought I think I have determined why you think I got the application of Occam's Razor wrong. I think you mistakenly thought that I am implying that Occam's Razor determines what reality is. That is to say, that because Occam's Razor favors Theory #1 above, it MUST be true despite the fact that there may be something we don't know.

This isn't my point at all.

Occam's Razor is a tool, not a diviner. As new facts are presented it must be constantly reapplied and will only tell you what is most LIKELY given the available knowledge.

Hence I can agree that we might not know all the facts, however given what we DO know Occam's Razor suggests that Theory #1 is the most likely as it adequately explains what happened in the simplest manner without assuming elements to the story that haven't been evidenced or claimed.

" Now to be fair, you don't state that Theory #2 is necessarily true, but you do insist that we take it into consideration"

Because we don't know anything about #2, part 3.

"Theory #2 assumes an additional element to the story with no evidence to presuppose it"

No, Theory #2 asks for more information before passing judgement.

"Occam's Razor says that the simpler theory is the most likely."

NO, IT DOESN'T. This has nothing to do with Occam's Razor. All this has to do with is you passing judgement before hearing anything from the doctors. I was right, you're misapplying O.R., which as nothing at all to do with making a determination before hearing both sides.

"given the available knowledge."

And we don't have the other half of the story.

It's like you've heard someone say "I got beat up", and you believe them, without hearing the other guy say, "Yeah, but he broke into my house". Occam's Razor has NOTHING to do with your examples.

NO, IT DOESN'T.

Yes it does. You are multiplying entities unnecessarily by suggesting we can't make a determination of whether her story, as given, is likely.

Occam's razor or Ockham's razor[1], attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."[2] The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."[3]

When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[4]

To summarize the common understanding of the principle, "Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable, provided that it does not contradict the observed facts."

To point this out again, you are making assumptions.

You assume that there must be another side to the story. That is to say that she isn't telling it like it is and there are other factors. This doesn't necessarily have to be true. The doctors may have just let the baby die for the reasons stated. That sucks, but it is entirely possible and requires no assumptions about the existence of other facts for which there is currently no evidence.

Why not use "Occam's razor" to slit the throat of the newborn "thing" so it would not have to act as if its last few moments were a screen test for Eraserhead?
Oh, for the humorless...yes, I understand Occam's razor is a reasoning principle....sigh. Such disclaimers need be made among the true believers.

"You are multiplying entities unnecessarily by suggesting we can't make a determination of whether her story, as given, is likely."

Now your moving the goalposts to "likely". You've already passed judgement.

"the principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible"

And where does it state you're supposed to come to the conclusion after getting only one side of the story?

"You assume that there must be another side to the story. "

And without even bothering to ask the doctors, you assume there isn't. That has nothing to do with Occam's Razor. NOTHING. There are no competing theories from opposing sides. There is the ONE side, and then your judgement. O.R. doesn't apply at all.

I understand what this woman went through, and I also think the law is correct. The reason they do not help them is because of the suffering the child would go through. Ten years ago I had a set of twins born at 23 weeks. Back then doctors encouraged trying to save them. 30 hours after birth the first born passed away. His twin brother held on and survived. There is not a day that goes by that I don't cry and tell him how sorry I am for being so selfish that I did what I wanted instead of what was best for him. The health problems are unbelievable, and he has suffered so much. He can't live a normal life, it destroyed my marriage (now divorced), destroyed my finances, and it has kept my other two children from enjoying life. We can't go on vacations, we can't even go out to eat, everything revolves around this child who I love so much and now I have to watch his misery. Of all the babies born this early saved in this high-tech neonatal care unit around the same time have severe disabilities. All are on Government run care... medicaid (my son is now on private insurance).

I wish parents would stop being so selfish. Don't make them suffer. You may say you don't care if they have disabilities from the early birth, but do you have any idea what your life is going to be? Do you not care how the child will suffer? After ten years of this, I can say that saving him should have been considered child abuse from everything he has had to go through and will go through in the future. Doctors have seen this and they have stepped up and said they will not allow the suffering. What I think needs to be done is explaining the situation better to the parents. Everything was sugar-coated to us and we were unable to make our decision an informed one.

Now your moving the goalposts to "likely". You've already passed judgement.

No I am not, you either weren't paying attention or you are just trying to mislead now. I have been saying "likely" all along. I invite you to go back through my posts the entire time we have been having this Occam's Razor debate.

I have never said that her story has to be the way it is... I have said that it is the most likely version given the known facts at this time.

And where does it state you're supposed to come to the conclusion after getting only one side of the story?

Let me ask you something:

What would happen in a court of law if the defendant absolutely refuses to say one thing in their defense? Not one word... they just sit there and let the prosecution lay out their case and never say one word to contradict it. What would happen is that they would get convicted based on only one side of the story. The court wouldn't just throw the case out otherwise we would have defendants choosing the "silence defense" to beat raps all the time.

Why would we convict the defendant?

Because there is no obligation to assume that the defense's story would be any different than the accuser's. It is up to the defense to mount their case, not up to us to assume one for them if they refuse (for whatever reason) to give one themselves.

The tool used in this case is.... wait for it... Occam's Razor. At that point the jury would simply decide, given the known facts, if the prosecution's case adequately explains the charges to the burden of proof necessary. If so then it becomes the most likely story due to Occam's Razor and the defendant either goes to jail or goes to the chair.

Danforth, you are wrong on this. I wish you weren't because it sucks to think that they could let a baby die in this manner without even trying. At this time though the mothers story is very simple based ONLY on incontrovertible facts:

1) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Guidlines state that there be no treatment under 22 weeks.

2) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby is born under 22 weeks.

3) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby is not treated.

4) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby dies.

While there possibility that there are mitigating facts in this story, it is not my responsibility to assume this when the accused refuses to defend themselves (for whatever reason). It is equally likely that they don't defend themselves because it is trues simply as listed above and they consider themselves justified so see no reason to defend themselves.

Making assumptions that could insert extra facts violates the principles of Occam's Razor that says the minimum amount of assumptions should be made in order to reach the conclusion. The version above makes the least amount of assumptions (zero in fact) possible. At present it is the most likely story. When/if they decide to defend themselves I will do the responsible thing and reconsider my opinion on this.

Of all the babies born this early saved in this high-tech neonatal care unit around the same time have severe disabilities.

While I sympathize with your story, I can't help but disagree on several facts.

1) I don't know how long ago your child was born and how the technology and techniques have improved since then.

2) You mentioned the children in your case were twins. The March of Dimes site I linked to earlier in this thread says this is one of the crucial factors in determining viability and complications. Singleton births have a much better chance. Seeing that another crucial factor is birth weight, and twins typically have a lower birth weight, I would consider this a relevant factor.

3) There are numerous documented cases, including ones mentioned in this article of preemies being born as early as 21 weeks 6 days of gestation and growing up normally with NO defects.

You can play the numbers game, but just as with Downs Syndrome, the decision to try and save the child or not should be with the parent. Educate them on the risks if you feel the need (I would fully agree with that), but to refuse to try and condemn the child to death against the parent's wishes is unconscionable when there is a chance the child could be normal.

"given the known facts at this time."

More backpedaling. You've gone from 'facts' to 'known facts' to 'known facts at this time'.

"it is not my responsibility to assume this when the accused refuses to defend themselves (for whatever reason)"

And where in the story are the doctors asked for their version and refuse to answer? NOWHERE. They weren't even asked. Occam's Razor has NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING.

"What would happen in a court of law if the defendant absolutely refuses to say one thing in their defense?"

But that's not the case here at all. The "defense" hasn't been heard from. Using your example, after the prosecution rested its case, you went into the jury room. Invoking Occam's Razor before hearing the "defense" is a complete misapplication.

"you are wrong on this. I wish you weren't because it sucks to think that they could let a baby die in this manner without even trying. "

Just because you got your ass handed to you doesn't give you the right to blatantly barf up bullshit: I stated, in plain English, the EXACT OPPOSITE. Fuck you, you lying asshole. You lose, big time.

More backpedaling. You've gone from 'facts' to 'known facts' to 'known facts at this time'.

You really are a pointlessly nit-picking idiot aren't you? If you can't beat the logic you will just try to bog the argument down in irrelevant minutia.

The facts I listed ARE facts.

They are also (and redundantly so) KNOWN facts.

They are also (and doubly redundant) KNOWN FACTS AT THIS TIME.

Notice that none of these excludes the concept that there may be other facts we don't know at this time.

I guess if you can't win the argument on rational grounds then you feel the need to simply baffle us with bullshit.

And where in the story are the doctors asked for their version and refuse to answer?

You have a reading comprehension problem don't you?

FROM THE ARTICLE:

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

The "defense" hasn't been heard from.

Bullshit as I just proved. Even if it were true, again there is still no reason to assume a defense where you don't have one given.

Just because you got your ass handed to you...

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... declaring victory!!! Oh SHIT that is rich.

"declaring victory!!"

The minute you had to claim I'd was for the exact opposite of what I'd posted, you cried uncle. You lose, you lying sack of shit.

#220 | Posted by KirbyBC

I think you have a valid point. My aunt had a child born very premature. The doctors coerced her into trying all sorts of surgeries and life-extending measures. The child lived 6 months, blind and deaf, and in terrible pain the whole time. She regrets deeply not letting the child pass the day it was born.

As for the mother's complaints about not recieving drugs to stop labor. They can't always be adminstered after the water breaks, if there isn't enough amniotic fluid still in the womb, the baby has to come out or it will die in the womb.

The minute you had to claim I'd was for the exact opposite of what I'd posted,

Wrong again, moron. I questioned right from the beginning why you continued to argue after stating that you thought they should have "done everything they could" to save the baby.

To quote you even later as you convoluted yourself to explain your continuing argument:

I believe the doctors should have done what they could have. But, as I posted as well, "Based on what we know from the article" (#87). I've also stated it's doubtful we know everything, and therefore refused judgement on the doctors, judgement you seem more than willing to give.

#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-09 01:25 PM

Lets looks at this:

I believe the doctors should have done what they could have.

But then you go on to contradict yourself by saying we shouldn't judge the doctors:

I've also stated it's doubtful we know everything, and therefore refused judgement on the doctors,

Again, we have no responsibility to assume a defense for the doctors or the hospital when they have not only refused to offer a defense for themselves but have simply offered up the same guidelines stated as the reason in the mother's story.

Right now you are simply sounding like BBob... You can be shown links, quotes, and numerous facts and you offer none of your own. Yet you still try to claim victory. What a fucking joke.

"the hospital REFUSED to offer a defense"

'No comment' doesn't mean "no defense". You're assuming the hospital doesn't have a blanket gag order, as many large groups do.

Yet another assumption from Mr. Razor.

'No comment' doesn't mean "no defense".

That isn't what I said. I said it was "refusal to offer a defense", just like a defendant that refuses to offer a defense in court. Can you try not to twist a persons words.

You're assuming the hospital doesn't have a blanket gag order, as many large groups do.

The reason the refuse to offer a defense is irrelevant.

Yet another assumption from Mr. Razor.

No, I refuse to assume any reason for them not offering a defense. You on the other hand have assumed a reason for them.

As I have just pointed out, the hospital REFUSED to offer a defense and instead referred back to the guidelines. This not only fails to offer a defense, it bolsters the assertion of the mother that the guidelines were the reason the baby wasn't treated.

#227 | Posted by moomanfl

I think in order to mount a defense the hospital would probably have to release details of the mother and child's medical history which is against the law. Or that trying to mount a defense would be equivalent to admitting fault or something else equally stupid.

No one becomes a doctor because they want to force a mother to watch her child die.

I think in order to mount a defense the hospital would probably have to release details of the mother and child's medical history which is against the law.

Only if it against her will. They cited no such reason for their refusal and instead referred back to the guidelines that she already blames for the situation.

Or that trying to mount a defense would be equivalent to admitting fault or something else equally stupid.

Possible, but again irrelevant to Occam's Razor since it adds an unnecessary assumption to the equation where known facts suffice.

Irregardless, the law seems to be on their side so a suit against them on this would seem to be pointless and indeed there is no hint that the mother is trying one. Instead she is focusing on getting the guidelines changed since that is what she blames.

No one becomes a doctor because they want to force a mother to watch her child die.

I never suggested that the do want to do this... however it seems that this is indeed what happened. They probably feel horrible about it.

#231 | Posted by moomanfl

Occam's Razor was meant to be applied to natural phenomenom not human motivations or system's bureacracy. You can't ignore motivations or explanitions just because they don't fit you argument.

And also you did say the doctors wanted the baby to die.

"They only reason not to stop the labor for a few days and give a shot of steroids to accelerate lung development is if they didn't WANT to bother with a 22 week preemie. At 22 weeks they would have HAD to treat it... they evidently just didn't WANT to try."

Occam's Razor was meant to be applied to natural phenomenom not human motivations or system's bureacracy.

No, it was meant to be used on logical constructs where two theories are competing that result in the same outcome. It is often used for natural phenomena but that hardly means its use is limited only to that.

You can't ignore motivations or explanitions just because they don't fit you argument.

I can refuse to assume motivations and explanations where they haven't been given and where known facts already sufficiently explain the outcome.

When speaking hypothetically, it is equally likely that the doctors explanation would be the same as the mother's: e.g. the guidelines said not to treat the baby.

I can also revise my opinion should more facts come to light later but for the moment the known facts sufficiently explain the situation.

And also you did say the doctors wanted the baby to die.

You are right. I did say that and I will denounce that view now. I was wrong to make that assumption. However that doesn't negate the arguments have been making since then since that was not incorporated into the 4 basic incontrovertible facts I have outline:

1) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Guidlines state that there be no treatment under 22 weeks.

2) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby is born under 22 weeks.

3) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby is not treated.

4) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby dies.

So you're saying it would be better for it to procede like this...

1) Baby is born before 22 weeks

2) Baby is treated

3) Baby lives a painful existence for a couple days, weeks, or months in the hospital

4) Baby dies

5) Mother has to live with the guilt that she extended her child's suffering because she lacked the strength to let go

All of this is idle speculation. You don't know if this baby was viable or not. The most valiant medical efforts may have been obviously futile. They may not have been. This article tells us nothing relevant.

You can take two things from this article: the baby died, and Diablo wants you to blame the Canadian health care system.

So you're saying it would be better for it to procede like this...

Except that this isn't always the outcome. Indeed the youngest known preemie to ever live (mentioned in the thread article) is leading a normal life and is now 2 years old. There are numerous cases of babies born below 23 weeks that also live normally. Technology and techniques have improved and will continue to prove.

Then there is the matter of choice. The decision to provide extraordinary measures to save the child should be the parent's... not the state.

All of this is idle speculation.

The only speculation is on the part of those that ASSUME elements to the story that aren't given or hinted at.

You don't know if this baby was viable or not. The most valiant medical efforts may have been obviously futile. They may not have been.

Notice your constant use of "if", "may have", and "may not"... you speculate. I don't. Given the 4 incontrovertible facts I have listed, no speculation is necessary, and thanks to the guidelines we will never no if the baby could have been saved. What a waste.

we will never no if the baby could have been saved.

We will never KNOW it either.

The only speculation is on the part of those that ASSUME elements to the story that aren't given or hinted at.

I am assuming nothing. I am stating that this article doesn't give enough information for anyone to say anything.

Given the 4 incontrovertible facts I have listed...

An honest person still cannot make any claim because the medical condition of the baby is not specified. Mooman's only desire is to advance a belief of his despite lacking the facts to back it up.

We will never KNOW it either.

You would have an idea if you knew the child's condition... but you don't.

Why not inundate us with a torrent of sensationalized ideological vomit instead?

You would have an idea if you knew the child's condition... but you don't.

No you wouldn't necessarily. If the baby had no obvious defects other than being extremely premature you still can't predict whether they can be saved or not until you try. Too many other factors can play into it.

For that matter, you don't even know if they bothered to examine the baby to see if there were defects. It is just as likely that they rigidly held to the guidelines and didn't bother looking for any because they weren't going to treat it anyway since it was under 22 weeks.

You assume way too much.

I am assuming nothing. I am stating that this article doesn't give enough information for anyone to say anything.

Yes it does. It gives us 4 incontrovertible facts:

1) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Guidlines state that there be no treatment under 22 weeks.

2) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby is born under 22 weeks.

3) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby is not treated.

4) INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Baby dies.

Those facts alone are able to logically account for the outcome.

If you think any one of those aren't a fact... tell me why not.

If you think they aren't sufficient to explain how this could occur... explain why not.

Saying you don't think the doctors would do it this way isn't a logical argument, it is an emotional one.

Tell you what, there was one other fact that I haven't included in the list of incontrovertible facts because it doesn't effect the outcome... it only effects the explanation but doesn't invalidate my opinion:

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

For this I will indulge you with a little speculation.

Notice the hospital did not try to illuminate hospital policy that would put the mother's story in question. They could easily have done this without revealing details of her specific case.

Instead what they have in effect done is to refer back to the guidelines with the equivalent of, "Don't blame us! We don't make the rules."