rubydazzler Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I will answer you in the same way you answered me. What a strange thing to do.I'm confused about this. As far as I'm aware, autism develops during the second year of life and there is no definitive cause known. So how could anyone 'allow' a child who later develops autism to be born or not? How would they know beforehand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I will answer you in the same way you answered me. What a strange thing to do. So you actualy believe that someone who gives birth to a child who is then found to have a disbility is committing some kind of abusive act? How bizarre! So in your way of thinking should all children born with some defect be killed at birth then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I disagree. The NHS has to take into consideration finances. The official NHS drugs adviser has imposed a threshold of £30,000 for an added year of life provided by a treatment. In some respects, that figure is way too high! It is more than the average wage, how can it be cost effective. We spend too much on prisoners too. Investing in healthy, law abiding people would make much more sense for the future health of our society. Why the hell does a prisoner get 3 free meals a day, when an unemployed person can't afford to eat properly? It's madness. My post was unclear, what I intended to say was that it isn't an issue that should be decided solely on financial considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I assume that you are talking about if, during the pregnancy, the parents find out that their foetus has an 'illness', shall we say. Just out of curiosity, do you think that parents should be made to terminate a pregnancy, in this instance? You don't have to force them, all you need to do is tell them, it is not cost effective for the NHS to provide care for your prospective child, if you continue to have this child, the NHS will deliver your baby, but the financial burden of care will be upon you. The parents desire to have a disabled child would soon change if they could not rely upon the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 You don't have to force them, all you need to do is tell them, it is not cost effective for the NHS to provide care for your prospective child, if you continue to have this child, the NHS will deliver your baby, but the financial burden of care will be upon you. The parents desire to have a disabled child would soon change if they could not rely upon the state. Hmm, that's not likely to ever happen though, since the NHS, superficially is a provider of healthcare based on need. Going down that road would introduce all kinds of provisos on the offer of treatment and potential get out clauses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babooshka Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Sounds all right in theory BUT...what if they agreed to foot all costs. Then, found themselves not quite as financially able, later down the line. The child is unable to be cared for, due to financial constraints. Would we as a nation allow this child to suffer and, possibly, die before our very eyes, and stand back, and say, 'we told you so'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy talk Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Did you know Charles was Diana's 7th cousin and Camilla his 11th, she's actually closer related to Prince William than she is to Charles! oh 7th cousin is ok, its the 1st cousin marriage thats the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy talk Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Sheffield just had to feature in the Dispatches programe didn't it eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I have never heard of disabled people taking up unncessary resources if anything it is the able bodied people that we hear about that take the absolute michael. Maybe we should put a cap on those who should have children under the age of 25. No, I disagree disabled people are not a burden to our society. You would want to stop people having children at the healthiest time for them to do so??? Able bodied people are the people who fund the state! Of course the disabled are a burden, lifelong disability benefits and healthcare, very unlikely to work/pay tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 The disabilities that were mentioned in the dispatches programme seems as if they develop during their lifetime and are not prominent at birth - or did I misunderstand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.