Jump to content

Welcome to Emo Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Abortion Is About To Get A Whole Lot More Controversial...


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1
LionJess

LionJess

    Mistress of Ceremonies/Jessica the Vile

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,145 posts
Even the most staunch pro-choicers are likely to find this potentially difficult to stomach, so I can only imagine the reactions out of some of our more pro-life members. You fucks are lazy, so I've highlighted the very bare minimum:



Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in "circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term "after-birth abortion" as opposed to "infanticide." Why? Because it "[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child." The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents' best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an "acceptable" life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, "such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care."



This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the "morally relevant sense." On this point, the authors write:

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.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are "potential persons." The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute "subjective" moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these "potential persons" have the right to reach that potential by stating it is "over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence."

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to "suffer psychological distress" from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it "highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument":

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn't, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn't mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as "the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious" began in much the same way in bioethics journals.





---


EDIT: For the record, this is really more of an ethical/moral debate than a bunch of people advocating this. At least, it seems that way to me.




source
  • 0

#2
Gangsta Fag

Gangsta Fag

    Ass-Eating Aficionado

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque de Nuevo México
  • Country
  • US State:New Mexico
  • Fav Band Pennywise
  • Fav Song Redlight King - Old Man
Oh Australia, how you amuse me.
  • 0

#3
Crispin

Crispin

    ...

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,282 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country
  • Fav Band _
That's wrong. On so many levels.

I don't know about anyone else, but it's absolutely heartbreaking meeting/caring for children with impairments or difficulties of any sort. My high school built a school near to ours for children with special needs, and we'd volunteer and help out at times. And it's so hard to describe how emotional it is to work with children who will forget you a half hour later, or are ageing backwards and won't be able to remember their own parents and dress themselves at the age of 13. It's so hard to see that, but those kids are so happy and just full of life, to sound cheesy, and their parents and carers love them so much. It's so obvious.

So I don't think anyone has the right to decide to this if their child has any difficulties. I can understand the hardships they may go through, costs, time, taking care of them, emotional struggles etc. But.. I just think that's terrible. It's like deciding not to have your child because they may end up having dyslexia or ocd. That's so wrong.

My brother has GDD, his mind is four years behind, he has learning difficulties and he's currently 11 years old, we are also testing him to see if he may have some form of ocd. It is so hard to do simple thing at times, the emotional struggles, how he finds it difficult to be on par with kids his age, and the way things have to be a perfect way for him, it is so hard. But that doesn't mean that if my parents had known he had this disorder they would have decided not to have him. Because despite people classing him as being 'mentally deficient' he is smarter than a lot of the kids in his class, he gets the best grades, and he's incredibly friendly and talkative. He's just like anyone his age, just very innocent and works obsessively harder than others. Because mental disorders can be tackled and countered, you can work around them with tutors, therapy and a lot of communication. Although we've been told he'll probably never be able to function or work in a high school environment, we've tackled that and decided private school would be more effective for his development. Sure it'll cost but it's worth it. And despite my brother having a lot of struggles, he's on the same level as everyone else in his year, we can't think of life without him. Because he's not different in any way.

So you can't really ever do this to a person. It's just so horrible. How can you approve to terminate a child's life if they're not considered to be societies expectations of normality? Or societies definition of what is right? Just because they have a minor impairment doesn't mean they should say they can't live.
  • 0

#4
Gangsta Fag

Gangsta Fag

    Ass-Eating Aficionado

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque de Nuevo México
  • Country
  • US State:New Mexico
  • Fav Band Pennywise
  • Fav Song Redlight King - Old Man

My brother has GDD, his mind is four years behind

Your brother is a time traveler??? :o
  • 0

#5
Hyena.

Hyena.

    Who?

  • forum re-designers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country
  • Fav Band -
  • Fav Song -
Aletheia makes a good point, but so does the article; we already abort fetus' for reasons such as downs syndrome, Huntington's, but there are many debilitating disorders, genetic or not, that we can't predict in the womb.

The only real difference here, supposedly 'separating' this from abortion, is the fact that what you're killing is in front of you bodily, rather than a black and white image on a screen. I'm pro-choice, but people tend to forget that abortion is killing a baby, not just getting rid of a problem. Killing a newborn is the same act, for the same reasons, performed in a different way.

Of course, this doesn't mean the thought is any less horrific. But what these people are arguing is basically extending the existing 'deadline' (lolterriblehalf-pun) on abortions.
  • 0

#6
Reflection

Reflection

    Noitcelfer

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:.
  • Country
  • Fav Band .
  • Fav Song .
I'd say an infant is a real person around age 2, when memories start to develop and self-awareness happens.
  • 0

#7
Gangsta Fag

Gangsta Fag

    Ass-Eating Aficionado

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque de Nuevo México
  • Country
  • US State:New Mexico
  • Fav Band Pennywise
  • Fav Song Redlight King - Old Man
But isn't it redundant to actually go through the entire birthing process just to off it anyway?
A vagina ruined for naught. (Although I imagine any woman who wants an abortion after the child is born is probably a crazy fuck to begin with)
  • 0

#8
Queen of Hearts

Queen of Hearts

    Mustache Cash Stash

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,826 posts
If I had a retard baby I'd have it terminated. If it can't function entirely on it's own, it isn't fit to survive.
Where have the ideas of survival of the fittest and Darwinism gone?
  • 0

#9
Smashing!

Smashing!

    I am Melon LORD!

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts

It's like deciding not to have your child because they may end up having dyslexia or ocd.


People die every day for more trivial reasons or reasons that could be avoided.

And no it's not, doctors would never agree to terminate a child/fetus on such grounds. Doctors like that should their medical licences revoked. It would be more serious life debilitating conditions like [WARNING, MAY CAUSE DISTRESS, disturbing image.] harlequin ichthyosis. Or progeria which is a rapid aging disease, most children diagnosed with this condition don't live past the age of 13.

Cases like these in the long run it cac be seen as better to terminate early. Children MAY live a somewhat happy short life (their happiness really depends on how well they can be provided and looked after for the time that they are alive) but at the same time it will always be an agonising and slow painful deterioration to a usually inevitable ending.

The down syndrome thing was only an example, I don't know how much of the medical community would actually agree with that though as a real life implementation. But down syndrome was probably used as an example because it is one of those things that can be detected in newborns.

How can you approve to terminate a child's life if they're not considered to be societies expectations of normality?


It's not just 'societies' expectation it's a medical standard for healthy living. As long as serious cases can be allowed to choose and anything considered minor not be eligible, I don't see what's wrong at all.

Relax, you make it sound like they are going to start to put down every child from a mild form of mental disorder all the way to severe debilitating medical disorders. They won't, because mild mental disorders can't even be diagnosed until the child reaches the age of 4+. So this wouldn't even apply to people like your brother, it's strictly expanding to newborns only AND it's still a choice.

Having a choice is always a good thing. As cruel as it sounds the only people that really should have a right to choose would be the people that will be directly affected by the child. If they can and want to keep they should be able to, if they don't and cant then what's the point of forcing it?

If governments ever did decide on making it illegal to abort newborns then at least the thing they can do is provide extra assistance in raising the child. But if they were to make it illegal and not help out, then it's just a sentence for economical and emotional anguish for the family and the child for the short years to come.



I'd love to hear a debate on this from the pro life people though, such entertaining people.
  • 0

#10
Hyena.

Hyena.

    Who?

  • forum re-designers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country
  • Fav Band -
  • Fav Song -
As fun as it is to be shocking, fucking tag that link, you dick. You're lucky I've already gone through the Pain Series on ED. Others here won't be quite so seasoned.
  • 0

#11
O Brave New World

O Brave New World

    Republican and Proud.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts
I think we need to go back to Spartan Society. A new born baby would be inspected by an elder after birth. If any birth defects were found, the infant would be tossed off a cliff.
  • 1

#12
Forzare!

Forzare!

    roosterteeth

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,599 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Winchester
  • Country
  • Fav Band Lorde
  • Fav Song Lorde - Bravado

I'd love to hear a debate on this from the pro life people though, such entertaining people.


You're very belittling.

It's a very difficult situation really, i'm kind of shocked that its even come up for discussion though to be honest, to ME, it seems like a complete step in the wrong direction. Instead of trying to understand and help those affected by these disorders and problems it's almost trying to bury them under the carpet, it's something that I don't even think should be considered. It worries me if people think this is an acceptable decision to make. I can completely understand people who argue that it's emotionally and financially burdening to have a child with a severe disability but if you choose to have a child that's one of the problems you may possibly encounter. The child not coming out 'right' shouldn't mean you can just abandon them or make the decision to have them killed, it isn't a fair choice for anyone to make. The only very exceptional circumstances to me would be if the child is in such an undeniable amount of suffering that won't go away their entire lives, if their lives would truly be such a misery that it wouldn't be worth living it might be considered. I think time and energy would be better spent on genetic screening and prevention of the diseases rather than trying to just control what comes out.
  • 0

#13
Smashing!

Smashing!

    I am Melon LORD!

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts

As fun as it is to be shocking, fucking tag that link, you dick. You're lucky I've already gone through the Pain Series on ED. Others here won't be quite so seasoned.


Edit button disappeared, and it's a life threatening condition what do people expect =/. It's just skin really...think of it like special effects. Linked it thinking it would be better than posting the pic never knew people there that squeemish.


You're very belittling.



I'm depreciating them by saying they are entertaining? I feel like I'm doing quite the opposite, I appreciate them BECAUSE they are so entertaining.

Instead of trying to understand and help those affected by these disorders and problems it's almost trying to bury them under the carpet.


Medical science always jumps to the opportunity to study rare diseases that have no known cure.



Not every harlequin ichthyosis sufferer will be lucky like these girls, most have died an agonising death. Until it can be guaranteed that mothers that give birth to a severely deformed and sick baby can be given the proper assistance in raising the child, then it should not be illegal for them to chose to abort.

I can completely understand people who argue that it's emotionally and financially burdening to have a child with a severe disability but if you choose to have a child that's one of the problems you may possibly encounter.



When you say it like that then you don't completely understand the argument for emotional and financial side. If a family DOES NOT have the financial capability to raise the child properly and have their needs met, how can the child have a full and happy life? The right to choose and the availability to have that choice should always rest with the family, because in the end it doesn't affect ANYONE ELSE but them. I can't even begin to imagine the medical bills for countries with poor public health care like America.

The original published paper basically wanted to extend the option abortion further to allow it to be done to newborns since some medical conditions won't be detected until then. They are just basically extending the area where an OPTION can be allowed.

How can you say it's 'wrong or right' for them to do so when you won't even have to deal with the things they will have to deal with? Yea sure it's easy to say "No killing is wrong you have to KEEP THE CHILD, and LOVE them for what they are." but you aren't even in their position and you most likely will never be.

This is also the same logic behind animal testing, that 'it's wrong and its cruel and they should be free.' And yet people want SAFE medicine that they can use and trust, okay then so what in the world do these people want to test products on then? People?

I think time and energy would be better spent on genetic screening and prevention of the diseases rather than trying to just control what comes out.


Genetic screening would just mean they find out sooner, they still will have to abort but it's just they get to do so at an earlier stage.

Prevention of a genetic disease? Do you have any idea what this means? This would open up another whole can of 'ethics and morality' debate because that would be gene modification or the idea of playing 'god'. And even so if we were to do this, this is centuries away from being possible. So for now you can't expect everyone to just suck it up and keep their child if something is severely wrong with it.

It's as if people think "oh so kids with ADHD are going to get aborted now". No it's not like that, doctors would never even LET the parents do such a thing. Only in cases of severe chronic medical conditions will aborting newborns will be allowed, the government would never just let parents go "Um our son has a lazy eye yea we don't like that...abort please." Just because people have a choice doesn't mean they can willie nillie choose to abort their child for dumb reasons.

The article isn't really that bad at all, it just suggest to allows a larger window of time for parents to make a proper informed decision that could benefit them and/or their child.
  • 0

#14
Forzare!

Forzare!

    roosterteeth

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,599 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Winchester
  • Country
  • Fav Band Lorde
  • Fav Song Lorde - Bravado

When you say it like that then you don't completely understand the argument for emotional and financial side. If a family DOES NOT have the financial capability to raise the child properly and have their needs met, how can the child have a full and happy life? The right to choose and the availability to have that choice should always rest with the family, because in the end it doesn't affect ANYONE ELSE but them. I can't even begin to imagine the medical bills for countries with poor public health care like America.

Oh well thanks for pointing that out, I was pretty sure I could understand both sides but as you've most certainly pointed out I have no idea. ^____________^
No. The same goes for any child, any child disabled or not can be very costly and shouldn't be a decision taken lightly BECAUSE of the liklihood of having complications. Not every child out there has a full and happy life. I can appreciate that it may be difficult for families but that's up to the government to support them/their own income. The idea of killing a child because the parents can't support it if it isn't relatively normal just seems like something that shouldn't be considered in the first place to me.


How can you say it's 'wrong or right' for them to do so when you won't even have to deal with the things they will have to deal with? Yea sure it's easy to say "No killing is wrong you have to KEEP THE CHILD, and LOVE them for what they are." but you aren't even in their position and you most likely will never be.

Doesn't mean i'm not allowed an opinion does it? You'll never, ever go through an abortion, do you have an opinion on it? Clearly yes. If I ever became a mother be choice i'd have carefully considered the possibility that my child might be disabled or worse and it's a risk i'd have to take.

Genetic screening would just mean they find out sooner, they still will have to abort but it's just they get to do so at an earlier stage.

I'm talking about the parents. Genetically screening them to see the liklihood of them producing a child that would be disabled. It could potentially stop this from happening, parents would make an informed decision once they know if their future children might end up disabled and they could adopt or have a donor or something, there are plenty of other options, there are so many kids that need adopting out there.

Prevention of a genetic disease? Do you have any idea what this means?


I think you have this assumption that you know more than everyone here and that everyone is clearly clueless to a lot of things they talk about. You should probably stop that.
  • 0

#15
Gangsta Fag

Gangsta Fag

    Ass-Eating Aficionado

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque de Nuevo México
  • Country
  • US State:New Mexico
  • Fav Band Pennywise
  • Fav Song Redlight King - Old Man
I agree. Poor healthcare in America, who wants things like not having to wait months for something like surgery? God I wish I could wait months for procedures, and operations too. Me so jelly
Why does everybody seem to think that if you go to an American hospital, you see poor people dying on the sidewalk outside, and the Monopoly Man waltzing straight on in laughing manically?
  • 0

#16
.. ...

.. ...

    Recovering

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,226 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country
  • US State:New York
  • Fav Band
  • Fav Song
I'm usually staunchly pro-choice, but this doesn't sit well with me. Seems to be a slippery slope.
  • 0

#17
Smashing!

Smashing!

    I am Melon LORD!

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts

I can appreciate that it may be difficult for families but that's up to the government to support them/their own income.


Not every government does it good enough. So basically you're saying "well they and their government can handle it" and if they can then that's great, but what if they can't? Then what? Tough it out? Not many governments have great health care, it's mainly European countries.

The idea of killing a child because the parents can't support it if it isn't relatively normal just seems like something that shouldn't be considered in the first place to me.


Okay so if parents can't support the child financially and possibly emotionally their options are:

1) Keep the child and struggle or pray they get a donations/assistance from someone/people.

How can you be sure everyone will actually be helped? It would be hard pressed to find a government that will pay for everything, medical treatment and care is VERY expensive. If you have ever stayed overnight in a hospital and will know, it costs several hundred dollars just to do so. Those people that don't get enough help what will happen to them?

2) Put the child up for adoption.

What are the odds of the child being adopted? What happens if no one adopts? I'm not too privy on adoption processes but I don't think newborns would even qualify. And the process would take long and such children need immediate care.

It's a very normal act in nature actually. And yes I know we aren't wild animals, but medical science just isn't that advanced to deal with certain problems effectively and consistantly.


Doesn't mean i'm not allowed an opinion does it? You'll never, ever go through an abortion, do you have an opinion on it? Clearly yes. If I ever became a mother be choice i'd have carefully considered the possibility that my child might be disabled or worse and it's a risk i'd have to take.


No but my sister has gone through that process, I had my opinions but I always felt the choice was up to hers and should be up to her no matter what. No one wants to take away your right for keeping your child so why would you not agree for someone else to have the opposite option? And how likely do you think couples about to have their first child will think "Hmm my child might have progeria." it's a 1 in 13 million chance, that's why when it happens to people it's such a shock. Be realistic most people won't think like that, even if YOU will.

People having opinions is fine but when those opinions amass and then are used to influence votes on laws being passed, that becomes an issue. Opinions won't always remain an 'opinion' and they can cause damage when this happens. Plenty of bad laws been passed in the past based on opinion.

In the end there are GOOD and BAD opinions, and in certain cases even right and wrong opinions. If you break down on what good and what bad an opinion can do and compare the results should speak for themselves. Whether people accept them or not is another story.


I'm talking about the parents. Genetically screening them to see the liklihood of them producing a child that would be disabled. It could potentially stop this from happening, parents would make an informed decision once they know if their future children might end up disabled and they could adopt or have a donor or something, there are plenty of other options, there are so many kids that need adopting out there.


Defect genes aren't the only cause of medical conditions, there is also something called mutation that causes medical complications. Missing genes or defect genes found in a single parent will not definitely mean they will have a sick child, it is when genes from both parents combine that mutations can occur causing issues. You may stop a handful and even then those parents might have had a relatively healthy baby.


I think you have this assumption that you know more than everyone here and that everyone is clearly clueless to a lot of things they talk about. You should probably stop that.


You can assume all you want, I'm a person of facts and reason, I won't speak about something if I don't know much about it. This is a topic I do know about well enough to say the things I have. If I'm wrong on anything you're free to point it out. And I'm not the kind of person to judge someone else without even knowing them, I respond based on what people say.

When you spoke of disease prevention, that is something that would be more associated with viruses and bacteria. But this is about fetuses and newborns where genetic defects are the main thing that causes issues. You were basically talking about genetic engineering if you were talking about 'disease prevention'. And there are MANY MANY problems with this suggestion. But for someone who may not know much about it, it would be an easy thing to suggest.

This showed me that you didn't really know the weight of what you were really suggesting. Or you knew but you...suggested anyway...which would raise more question then it answers.

1) Medical science doesn't have the technology to manipulate genes on a large scale.
2) The complete cause for rare genetically caused diseases are still largely unknown.
3) Even before the first 2 points can be completed there are tons of people breathing down the neck of scientist saying that genetic engineering is blasphemy and playing god.
4) Such procedures aren't going to be cheap, not everyone will have access to it (unless the government steps in).

These are the problems (and possibly more). I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's just not practical currently. So for now if the child can be saved without causing severe ramifications to the family then sure save the child, if not then abort and try again or just move on and adopt.

Look I can tell this is something that morally doesn't sit with you, it doesn't sit well for a lot of people. But morals alone aren't a good enough deciding factor for such things. Life is not as precious as people believe it to be, there are millions of people currently alive that are suffering and as modern as the world has become we can't even fix that problem. Do you think we can even handle the complex issue of aborting or treating sick newborn/unborn well enough, when we can't even take care of something as simple as getting food to hungry people?

If you really wanted to save lives then you're better off taking all the money used to prolong the lives of those handful of children and feed the 16,000 children dying everyday from hunger.

Point is you can't save everyone, newborns aren't anymore special then a fetus let alone a starving child. Sometimes it's better off to abort that child and invest the resources in something that will save more than just 1 child. Easier said than done, people tend to value their own flesh over others.

I'm not here to change how you see things, I'm just here to point on why some of your logic won't work in real life. Whether you change your mind/opinion is up to you.
  • 0

#18
Smashing!

Smashing!

    I am Melon LORD!

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts

I agree. Poor healthcare in America, who wants things like not having to wait months for something like surgery? God I wish I could wait months for procedures, and operations too. Me so jelly
Why does everybody seem to think that if you go to an American hospital, you see poor people dying on the sidewalk outside, and the Monopoly Man waltzing straight on in laughing manically?


Why do you think America was ranked 37th on the WHO list of healthcare? Cause that stuff happens more than you think. The list is pretty outdated though, should really be updated.
  • 0

#19
Gangsta Fag

Gangsta Fag

    Ass-Eating Aficionado

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque de Nuevo México
  • Country
  • US State:New Mexico
  • Fav Band Pennywise
  • Fav Song Redlight King - Old Man
A list from 12 years ago based off of stats gathered from even longer ago, as well as the WHO can no longer produce rankings because the complexity of healthcare systems. Not to mention that if you go to a UGC, or ER they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to take you. Even if it means that the tax payers have to end up picking up the tab. Which wouldn't be as bad if there wasn't a large population who pay zero taxes to begin with.
  • 0

#20
Smashing!

Smashing!

    I am Melon LORD!

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts

A list from 12 years ago based off of stats gathered from even longer ago, as well as the WHO can no longer produce rankings because the complexity of healthcare systems. Not to mention that if you go to a UGC, or ER they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to take you. Even if it means that the tax payers have to end up picking up the tab. Which wouldn't be as bad if there wasn't a large population who pay zero taxes to begin with.


That and it takes a really long time to do extensive evaluation on 190 different health care systems. It was never about people not getting accepted into ER's or anything like that. Originally I brought up American health care as it was previously notoriously known for having some serious issues (dumping patients into cabs and dropping them on the curb, people collapsing in waiting rooms etc). People are afraid to go visit the doctor if they don't have health insurance, by the time they end up in the ER it might be too late. I do know that there is SCHIP and medicaid but I wouldn't know how much it covers for families in such situations where they have to look after a chronically and terminally ill child.

American public health care seems still like it has a long way to go though. I'm curious if it's improved or not in the 2 years though.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users