Posted by: Baldwin
- [241292815] Wed, Mar 23, 2005, 18:08
"Because of these difficulties, the American Academy of Neurology has made it clear that it can take months for a physician to establish with confidence the diagnosis of PVS. A 1996 British Medical Journal study, conducted at England’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, concluded that there was a 43-percent error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Inadequate time spent by specialists evaluating patients was listed as a contributing factor for the high incidence of errors." - source
Thank you for your 45 minute diagnosis/death sentence Dr Cranford.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
829
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 00:34
Nonsense. You've been disrespecting her wishes since you realize they conflicted with your own.
She took the name Terri Schiavo. Calling her anything else merely highlights that she is a tool for your political aims.
830
Frick
ID: 5310541617 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 08:48
I like the comparison to Shiavo, to bad the article fails to mention what the actual injury was. The article mentions it vaguely as a brain injury, but does not give more details.
But, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to comment. Boldwin will never change his mind, and while he is a huge proponent of personal freedoms, he only wants personal freedom that fits into his view of morality.
831
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 11:30
...while he is a huge proponent of personal freedoms, he only wants personal freedom that fits into his view of morality.
I fear Frick, that such a descriptor would apply to FAR too many on the politicala Right these days. (At least, as far as it concerns the driving forces behind the RNC)
832
Boldwin
ID: 166451321 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 11:49
Yeah, the freedom to murder babies and the disabled doesn't fit my morality nor is it the proper role of government to defend that 'freedom'.
It really didn't take them long to go from killing the disabled Schiavo and killing pre-natal babies...
...all the way to comfortably advocating murdering newborn babies.
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
From the pages of Sarge's playbook:
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
Yeah, the cheerful 'mass murder advocating' eugenics crowd are the warm and fuzzies. Anyone who could advocate protecting the lives of babies from these whackos, must just hate hate hate. Obviously Sarge and these guys are on the same tactics page.
It's a complete moral inversion of common sense and decency. "May I kill your baby for you?" "You're welcome." "Let's get together for brie and chablis afterwards." Ther're baaack, 'civilized', charming, warm and fuzzy as ever, eugenics....back out from the shadows now that WWII vets are dying off.
And you laffed and said that it wouldn't lead to this. Did you really believe that?
836
Myboyjack
ID: 36452617 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 16:28
I'll agree with them that killing a newborn baby is not morally different than abortion....always looking for areas of agreement.
837
Tree
ID: 17039238 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 17:31
And you laffed and said that it wouldn't lead to this. Did you really believe that?
a handful of people having an opinion does not necessarily lead to something happening.
show some examples of this actually happening, and you'll see an incredibly large public outcry.
838
Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 17:35
I didn't hear from you when Obama voted for post birth infanticide.
839
Myboyjack
ID: 36452617 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 17:51
tree - in at least one abortion mill in the US it was happening.
MBJ - fine, i'll grant you that. but we both know that is an exception, rather than a rule. and if memory serves, when that story was first reported, people's reactions was that this was clearly murder, and imho, the work of a serial killer.
it's obviously an extreme case. there aren't a whole lot of legitimate doctors who would find any acceptable reason to murder a baby that has been born.
842
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:09
Re: 839 and 840: Sure. Yes, something terrible happened. Now let's see the massive support from "the liberals" for that guy, because that's what we're actually talking about here vis a vis Boldwin's drivel in post 835.
(Note, for instance, that the DA quoted in the article is a Democrat, according to his wiki page.)
"My comprehension of the English language can't adequately describe the barbaric nature of Dr. Gosnell," he added.
Williams said he might seek the death penalty for Gosnell, who with nine of his associates, including his wife, was arrested on Wednesday.
Gee, that sure sounds like a ringing endorsement of the practice to me. Calling it "barbaric beyond comprehension" and seeking the death penalty for the guy is awfully close to sitting back and drinking chablis, I guess. Not exactly the same, but it's close.
Hint: this guy was prosecuted for a series of crimes, by someone Boldwin tries to smear as all in favor of this stuff. That's a disgusting strawmanning lie, AND HE KNOWS IT. Let's not dignify the slander by blurring the point.
843
Myboyjack
ID: 36452617 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:17
Dwetz - you're refuting my posts by telling me where Baldwin's wrong - now that's a strawman. If you want to cite my posts - how 'bout responding to what I say in them - not what someone else said in another post. I only answer for things I say
844
Myboyjack
ID: 36452617 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:19
And here's my hint: I never said there was a ringing endorsement for the practice - my link was a direct response to tree - who requested an example of "this actually happening"
845
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:40
Post 835 : From the pages of Sarge's playbook:
Where in the sam hell did that come from? NEVER havce I advocated for the death of a born infant. You PoS.
Withdraw your allegation, or your presence. Take your pick.
Anyone care to make a moral distinction? Be careful - because in these doctors' cases, it's not just their defense attorney's arguing they did nothing wrong.
847
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:44
I have long advcated, terminating the option of abortion upon entering the 27th week. (the beginning of the 3rd trimester)
I'll defend no case of abortion past that time, UNLESS; the mother's life was in jeopard from continuing the pregnancy/delivery.
848
Myboyjack
ID: 36452617 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:45
"NEVER havce I advocated for the death of a born infant." He didn't say you did.
849
Myboyjack
ID: 36452617 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:46
Post 846 should have read :Hard to come up with a defensible argument that post natal abortions are any different, morally.....
850
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:55
re 848,
from 835:
Obviously Sarge and these guys are on the same tactics page.
Yes he did.
851
Myboyjack
ID: 36452617 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 19:02
Geez- yes, he said you use the "witch ethics" tactic -or whatever the "tactics" were he was describing....not that you advocating killing babies.
852
Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 22:19
Now let's see the massive support from "the liberals" for that guy.
Deal with the fact that you are trying to put back into office a man who voted for post birth infanticide.
Deal with the fact that Obama's favorite 'bioethicist', Rahm Emanuel's brother, is openly calling for infanticide.
853
Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 22:22
The tactic is covering for evil by redefining traditional morals as hatred.
854
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 22:23
How ignorant are you? I have already stated, I am not voting for, nor am I endorsing Obama for re-election. I;nm writing in Colin Powell, and urging others to do the sa,e.
There isnt a GOP candidate currently running, I'd endorse for fkn County Treasurer, let alone President. Obama lost me, with his accepting and signing into law, National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
855
Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 22:29
I appreciate the NDAA stand and respect the principled stand.
I have had the tactic used on me routinely so I don't take that comment back.
856
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 22:50
blah blah blah
857
Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 14:45
'I can't hear you', he explained.
858
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 15:18
no, more like; you are making no more sense, than the blah blah sounds from the teacher in those old Charlie Brown cartoons.
You drone on and on and on, and ignore all which you dont already buy into.
If you are over 70 Obama's death panel calls you a unit and if you come into the emergency room requiring neurosurgery [had a stroke for example] you will be denied all treatment but 'comfort care'.
Brain surgeon calls into Mark Levin show describing what he has just been told about government [HHS] guidelines.
Having had a happy 30 years with a stroke victim mother-in-law in my family [until she passed], I can tell you they aren't mere units that society should be denying care to.
The moral test of a government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick the needy, and the handicapped. - Hubert H Humphrey
'Your' country died, Hubert. It's morally dead body has been put on the pathway of death.
<862> Would Hubert disapprove of providing health care for the entire nation? Anyone may still opt for their own private insurance that provides "better" coverage.
My brother works as a RN in intesive care. He talks of a common place occurence where relatives insist on keeping their loved ones alive despite ridiculously poor odds, ridiculously high levels of pain and ridiculously high expense because 1) the relative doesn't want to feel guilty and 2) they aren't footing the bill.
He, and my two sisters in law who are also RNs, have also worked in Emergency rooms, where people who cannot afford insurance regularly show up for more routine procedures, because they cannot be refused service by law.
To trivialize the magnitude of the difficulty to establish global care rulesets that are both humane and economical is just an exhibition of naivity.
So many people have unrealistic expectations of socialized medicine, and are extremely quick to condemn efforts to provide it in any form. They don't offer solutions to make these tough life or death decisions. More often than not, they have zero expertise in the medical field as well. What could possibly be their agenda?
What exactly do you expect doctors to do when a person has a stroke?
I remember my great-grandmother having a stroke during Thanksgiving one year and my mother and aunt (both nurses) sitting with her and not going to the hospital. There was nothing that the hospital was going to do, that they couldn't do at home. They checked her vitals and made sure that she didn't get worse. She lived for another 5 years after that, but her already limited movement became even more limited after the stroke and she had a much harder time speaking.
Mortality is part of life. Doesn't being a Christian make you unafraid of the end of your living days?
Most of the Right are in complete denial about end-of-life care, and costs. In fact, that's how the whole "death panels" meme began: A complete misunderstanding of how Obamacare was going to pay for non-emergency doctor visits where end-of-life care options would be discussed.
I can only assume by there constant exhortations of fear of this, that and the other thing, that most Tea baggers have an excess of those chemicals coursing through their brains. There aren't any lions behind the bush over there to actually be afraid of any more, so they have to make stuff up to be afraid of.
When your politician or your doctor starts out telling you, 'Ya'know, mortality is a part of life'...find another one. It's not their job to sell you on the idea.
Believe it or not, I listened to the entire thing. More Malthusian conspiracy theories, Baldy? World overpopulation is a myth? Climate change is a farce? The leaders of the left and the right are actually in cahoots to wipe us all out? They are both actually Nazis? Aborting downs babies is what? I am not sure, but it just aint right. Coupling relief aid to birth control is genocidal? International ban on DDT was simply an excuse to allow certain races to die of malaria and typhus?
Anyone who doesn't agree with my position has to be trying to take over the world, right? If you aren't scared shitless of some impending apocalypse, then you aren't alive, right? Do you have PTSD, man?
That show was like listening to a science fiction story, very entertaining. I liked the children's stories of Chicken Little, and the boy who cried wolf too. You should watch the H2 channel's series Americas Book of Secrets, it's a hoot.
Oh and BTW, I was sent here by the CIA, the trilateral commission, the Templars, and the Masons to torment you. They told me if i didnt do it, they would kill my entire family.
now you done it Bean. You said "Masons". Boldy has been absolutely certain am a secret Mason, and have been for years. Even though I was a vocal Atheist, up until 4 years ago.
"Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up above, because there's bugger-all down here on earth."
Imagine you are at an elite university and 'your colleges' are discussing their inhuman plans for 30 years hence. Must be mind-blowing. Kinda like Obama listening in to the concentration camp plans of his Columbia professors. Or like Monty Python actors in their fancy elitist college days. Shrewsbury, Oxford, Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridge, Oxford.