Page 2 of 4

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:36 am
by xaoshaen
Tossica wrote:This is actually pretty cool. We can now lobotomize women to the point of being brain dead and keep them alive just to make babies. I'm sure this will be a much cheaper route than the whole courtship, marriage, divorce cycle we are in now.


Of course, you're assuming that the babies are the desired outcome, rather than the byproduct of the intended *cough* outcome.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:40 am
by Tossica
xaoshaen wrote:
Tossica wrote:This is actually pretty cool. We can now lobotomize women to the point of being brain dead and keep them alive just to make babies. I'm sure this will be a much cheaper route than the whole courtship, marriage, divorce cycle we are in now.


Of course, you're assuming that the babies are the desired outcome, rather than the byproduct of the intended *cough* outcome.


We will need a constant supply of new women to zombify.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:50 am
by Jimmy Durante
Now I'm feeling zombified.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:48 pm
by Arlos
OK, Mindia, honest question. What would YOU do if you were the one making the decision on what to do here?

Lets start with the basic premise: The woman is completely brain-dead, and suffering from cancer that is continuing to spread throughout her body. Zero hope of ever recovering.

So, what do YOU think should happen?

1) She should continue to be kept on artificial life support.
Sub-question to this: Who pays for it if so? Life support is insanely expensive, unlikely the family can afford it or that insurance would cover it, nor is it fair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill.

2) They should pull the plug and let her body die, catching up to her brain which is already dead?

So which is it? #1 or #2, and why?

-Arlos

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:55 pm
by alezrik
Mindia wrote:
veeneedefeesh wrote:I realize this is probably a fruitless task, but I will try to break it down for you Mindia. you posted
Countdown started as to when the husband tells the doctors to "pull the plug" and then tells the press that it was "his wife's wish to him."

This gives the impression that YOU think that he will be killing off his wife and you DON'T approve of that action. Note the condescending attitude and general self-righteous tone of the statement.
Zanchief responded by saying
She's brain-dead fucknut.

implying that she was already dead and that your approval of this was not an issue since she was dead already for all intents and purposes. Also he leveled an insult your way by calling you a fucknut. This implies that he thinks you are an oxygen thief and that your genetic material would be much better utilized if it were part of a higher organism say... some sort of bacteria



I don't need anything broken down for me, Einstein. My entire point was I see this turning into another fiasco like the Terry Schiavo case. That's it.


The Schiavo case wouldnt of been a fiasco if not for her parents and Jeb

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:07 pm
by Narrock
Arlos wrote:OK, Mindia, honest question. What would YOU do if you were the one making the decision on what to do here?

Lets start with the basic premise: The woman is completely brain-dead, and suffering from cancer that is continuing to spread throughout her body. Zero hope of ever recovering.

So, what do YOU think should happen?

1) She should continue to be kept on artificial life support.
Sub-question to this: Who pays for it if so? Life support is insanely expensive, unlikely the family can afford it or that insurance would cover it, nor is it fair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill.

2) They should pull the plug and let her body die, catching up to her brain which is already dead?

So which is it? #1 or #2, and why?

-Arlos


Well, if she is truly brain-dead then she can't feel any pain, right? Then if her condition is so advanced, like they claim, then she would only be able to sustain life for a few more weeks or a couple months, yes? Then I say just keep her on the LS until she dies.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:08 pm
by xaoshaen
Mindia wrote:Well, if she is truly brain-dead then she can't feel any pain, right? Then if her condition is so advanced, like they claim, then she would only be able to sustain life for a few more weeks or a couple months, yes? Then I say just keep her on the LS until she dies.


And who would you have foot the bill for sustaining the mechanical functionality of a woman who's past caring?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:17 pm
by Arlos
Sub-question to this: Who pays for it if so? Life support is insanely expensive, unlikely the family can afford it or that insurance would cover it, nor is it fair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill.


You didn't answer this part of the question.

Where does the money come from to pay for the extended intensive care treatment and the life support? We're talking costs of well over $10,000 a day here, probably a lot higher than that. If it IS somehow covered by insurance, you're asking that insurance company to take a hit to it's bottom line of millions of dollars. If it's not covered by insurance, where is the Family going to come up with that kind of money? You suggesting the hospital should float the bill? Hospitals usually are in the red anyway, and doing that would mean cutting care to who knows how many other patients. I would HOPE you're not suggesting that Taxpayers foot the bill, I know I would FAR rather millions of tax dollars go towards things like libraries & schools than keeping a brain-dead woman with no hope of recovery alive.

So, again, if you think she should be artificially kept alive, who pays for it?

-Arlos

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:19 pm
by Zanchief
The church.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:21 pm
by The Kizzy
I hate to agree with Mindia twice in one week :wink: , but if it were one of my sons, or a spouse, I would do what ever I could to come up with the money. Also, I think it's illegal to take someone off os lifesupport for not paying the bill.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:23 pm
by Narrock
It's the insurance company's responsibility to foot the bill. Plus, the family has gotten donations in excess of $400,000. I think they're pretty much covered at this point.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:27 pm
by Zanchief
Kizzy wrote:I hate to agree with Mindia twice in one week :wink: , but if it were one of my sons, or a spouse, I would do what ever I could to come up with the money. Also, I think it's illegal to take someone off os lifesupport for not paying the bill.


She's dead Kizzy.

Not to sound rude but would you embalm your son?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:28 pm
by The Kizzy
The point though, is that she will never get better she will never "live". She will never be able to do anything but eat and breathe because of a machine. Does that make sense?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:30 pm
by Gypsiyee
This was in the paper a little while ago

It's bittersweet for the man.. his child lives and he loses his wife, it's a heartbreaking case, and it's disgusting (but not shocking) to me to see someone already pointing the finger and calling the guy a murderer

He hasn't moved on with his life, he's spent every night at her side, what the hell do you want him to do? Your problem with Michael Schiavo was that he was in it for the money and had his new little woman and new family so that's why he didn't care about Terry - that obviously isn't the case here

You're passing judgment on this man when nothing's even been done yet. How can you live with yourself being so distrusting of the true goodness of people? Aren't you miserable assuming the worst about everyone? I know I would be.. certainly there comes a point where you have to try to see the good in SOMEONE (other than yourself, we know how highly you think of you.)

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:31 pm
by Arlos
What if the extended life support is not covered in their insurance policy? It's not in many cases. What then?

Also, what good is served by keeping the woman alive? If not for artificial means, she would be completely dead right this minute. The only reason they were used in the first place is so that the child could be saved. What benefit is it to society to keep her alive, especially if it was her and the family's wish that she should not be?

Oh, and by the way, it is COMPLETELY legal to forcibly remove someone from life support if they can't pay, at least in Texas, based on a bill that then-governor George W Bush signed into law.

March 22, 2005
Sun Hudson, a six-month old Texas baby died last week when health care providers at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, Texas removed his life support system over the objections of his mother. The action was authorized under the 1999 Futile Care Law which was signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

Under the Texas Futile Care Law, health care workers are allowed to remove expensive life support for terminally ill patients if the patient or family is unable to pay the medical bills.

Sun Hudson's mother is dealing with the aftermath of that law. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months," Wanda Hudson told reporters how she was forced to give up medical control of her son. "I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive."

The hospital had blocked the media from the child, despite mother's invitation to see the baby. "I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself. So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious," she said.


Some serious hypocrasy there regarding his handling of the Schiavo case, eh? OK to kill a baby who might recover, just cause the mom can't foot the bill, but not Schiavo? Hello? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

-Arlos

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:39 pm
by Martrae
A Web site was set up to help raise money for the family's mounting medical bills, and as of two weeks ago, people from around the world had donated around $400,000. The family said it must pay tens of thousands of dollars each week that insurance does not cover.


Somehow, I'm sure that none of that will be left once all her bills and the baby's are paid. Plus, the husband quit his job. What's he going to live on? How's he keeping his home? Paying his bills? What's he going to do when it's time for the baby to come home?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:52 pm
by Tuggan
man, why do you damn people keep on trying to persuade mindia in your arguments? i dont believe a word mindia posts is really how he feels the majority of the time, i think hes just out to rile you fools up over and over again. you all seem to think hes the dumbest fucker on the block, yet hes got just about all of you eating this shit up. ignoring him is the best way to get rid of him.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:55 pm
by Wrath Child
Mindia wrote:So now let's kill her because she's worthless. :rolleyes: :(


She's dead, Jim...I mean Mindia.

Think of it this way:

Two cars are approaching an intersection from opposite directions. The driver of one car suffers a massive brain aneurysm and crashes head-on into the other car. While his airbag saves his body from harm, he is completely brain dead. The other driver, who didn't have an airbag, finds himself impaled on his now broken steering wheel. But, his brain is perfectly OK.

As luck would have it, the accident occurs outside a hospital that specializes in advanced brain surgery. The doctors find that the two car accident victims are complete blood and tissue matches for each other, so they attempt a highly experimental brain transplant.

The operation is a complete success. The previously impaled man awakes three days later from a coma to find he is now in the body of the brain dead man. He goes on to live a healthy, normal life to the ripe old age of 80.

If you were behind the wheel of one of those cars, which man would you want to be?

Are we our body? Or are we our brain?

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:56 pm
by Zanchief
I saw a bit on AOTS about rejuvenated zombie dogs.

They froze em then did a blood transfusion or something and they came back to life.

Just sayin'.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:58 pm
by Wrath Child
Tuggan wrote:man, why do you damn people keep on trying to persuade mindia in your arguments? i dont believe a word mindia posts is really how he feels the majority of the time, i think hes just out to rile you fools up over and over again. you all seem to think hes the dumbest fucker on the block, yet hes got just about all of you eating this shit up. ignoring him is the best way to get rid of him.


We tried that with you but as you can plainly see, it didn't work! So now we're trying something new.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:59 pm
by Gypsiyee
Well Tugg, honestly it's because I don't feel he's intelligent enough to set such a trap

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:05 pm
by Tuggan
Gypsiyee wrote:Well Tugg, honestly it's because I don't feel he's intelligent enough to set such a trap



So hes not smart enough to set up these fairly obvious traps, but you feel hes intelligent enough to even try to fathom your point of view? Its a waste of time, but I guess its entertaining to some of you. :dunno:





and who are you "Wrath Child"? this is the only board I havent been banned from so far, I was apparently pretty easy to ignore ;)

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:12 pm
by Martrae
She's dead.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:18 pm
by The Kizzy
Zanchief wrote:
Kizzy wrote:I hate to agree with Mindia twice in one week :wink: , but if it were one of my sons, or a spouse, I would do what ever I could to come up with the money. Also, I think it's illegal to take someone off os lifesupport for not paying the bill.


She's dead Kizzy.

Not to sound rude but would you embalm your son?


Thinking about it brings tears to my eyes, but if there was a chance even a minute chance that he would get better then I would fight tooth and nail to keep him alive. If he were brain dead, I would keep him long enough for my family to say their goodbyes and I would let him go to Heaven where he would be happy.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:38 pm
by Minrott
Man Tuggan I've been saying that for years now.