Baby, born 2 days shy of "mimimum requirement for care", left to die in U.K

[MCWAY]

It appears that former AK govenor, Sarah Palin, was on to something, when talking about "Death Panels" for infants and the elderly.

And people wonder why Americans don't want "universal health care" (at least, not that per team Obama, which could mirror that of the U.K.).

In U.K., care denied for premature baby


WASHINGTON (BP)--A young British mother says her prematurely born son was left to die last October by doctors because he fell two days short of the minimum requirement for care.

Sarah Capewell's son, Jayden, was born 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy, but physicians said he needed to be at 22 weeks gestation in order to be treated, she told The Daily Mail in a Sept. 9 article. He lived for nearly two hours without medical assistance. She is seeking a review of the guidelines followed by National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in such cases.

Jayden, who was born at an NHS hospital in Norfolk, was breathing without help, had a strong heart rate and was moving his arms and legs after his birth, said Capewell, 23.

She told The Daily Mail she pleaded with a pediatrician, saying, "You have got to help." The doctor said, "No we don't"

While she was having contractions, a chaplain visited her to make plans for a funeral for her yet-to-be-born son, Capewell said. "I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead," she said, according to the newspaper.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31288

The woman wanted her baby; yet, the medical folks let him die, anyway....so much for "pro-choice".

[MCWAY]

BTW, wasn't President Obama involved in some controversy, involving infants born via botched abortions, from his home state of Illinois?

As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Things that make you go......'HMMMMMM!!!!!!"

[Straw Man]

BTW, wasn't President Obama involved in some controversy, involving infants born via botched abortions, from his home state of Illinois?

As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Things that make you go......'HMMMMMM!!!!!!"

no but some uninformed people still think so

[MCWAY]

no but some uninformed people still think so


Oh really!!??

Obama is involved in the controversy. The degree of that involvement (and what side he takes) is what is at issue.

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.


A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

[Soul Crusher]

McWay - all you will get is tortured logic trying to justify this crap. 

[kcballer]

Has nothing to do with obamacare.  It's a UK hospital guideline not a law, as far as i'm aware it's not an issue in america.  So no relevance at all.  Not all government run health care will be the same as not all laws in countries are the same.  

[MCWAY]

McWay - all you will get is tortured logic trying to justify this crap.  

Who you telling?  

Again, when Sarah Palin suggested that a "death panel" in Washington might render that her son, Trigg, was not worth saving (due to his Down's syndrome), liberals brushed her off as being extremist or crazy.

Well, this example of what happened to Sarah Capewell brings the reality of "death panels", courtesy of universal health care, to life. It's COLD, HARD FACT!!!!

This woman begged for her son to be saved and these folks REFUSED to do it, simply because he was two days shy of the minimum requirement for care, coupled with their not willing to be finanically or medically involved in the matter.

And, given Obama's track record, the possibility of his actually supporting such mess in his version of universal healthcare is certainly not out of the question.

There's a reason he wanted to ram this mess through, before people could actually read and digest the particulars. Is/was something like this among the reasons?

[Straw Man]

yep - he explained his rationale and you don't like it

so what

he opposed the bill because it was a back door way to limit abortion right which is exactly what it was.

the state bill was also not needed because there was already a federal law in place.  

Obama is for a womans right to choose and that is no secret to anyone

[kcballer]

Who you telling?  

Again, when Sarah Palin suggested that a "death panel" in Washington might render that her son, Trigg, was not worth saving (due to his Down's syndrome), liberals brushed her off as being extremist or crazy.

Well, this example of what happened to Sarah Capewell brings the reality of "death panels", courtesy of universal health care to life. It's COLD, HARD FACT!!!!

This woman begged for her son to be saved and these folks REFUSED to do it, simply because he was two days shy of the minimum requirement for care, coupled with their not willing to be finanically or medically involved in the matter.

And, given Obama's track record, the possibility of his actually supporting such mess in his version of universal healthcare is certainly not out of the question.

There's a reason he wanted to ram this mess through, before people could actually read and digest the particulars. Is/was something like this among the reasons?

You are forgetting something though - THIS ISN"T IN AMERICA.  Therefore it's not RELEVANT.  

[tonymctones]

You are forgetting something though - THIS ISN"T IN AMERICA.  Therefore it's not RELEVANT.  

LOL tell that to the left and obama who use canada and europe as examples of their views on healthcare jack ass

 

[MCWAY]

Has nothing to do with obamacare.  It's a UK hospital guideline not a law, as far as i'm aware it's not an issue in america.  So no relevance at all.  Not all government run health care will be the same as not all laws in countries are the same.  

It's not an issue....YET!!! And, if enough Americans are informed about it in time, it NEVER WILL BE an issue.

We all know that Americal liberals have UK/European envy, in terms of certain social policies. The possibility that this idea would be one Obamacare might mimic is a cause of great concern.

Bureaucrats deciding that your baby is too young, too abnormal, or too whatever to save or administer care is serious business.

[Soul Crusher]

It's not an issue....YET!!! And, if enough Americans are informed about it in time, it NEVER WILL BE an issue.

We all know that Americal liberals have UK/European envy, in terms of certain social policies. The possibility that this idea would be one Obamacare might mimic is a cause of great concern.

Bureaucrats deciding that your baby is too young, too abnormal, or too whatever to save or administer care is serious business.

Dont worry - Dear Leader said he is responsible for what happens with this. 

[MCWAY]

LOL tell that to the left and obama who use canada and europe as examples of their views on healthcare jack ass

 

Note that business didn't pick up here, until I mentioned Obama and his controversial involvement in the infant "born alive" issue in Illinois.

Another one of those things that make you say, "HMMMMM!!!!!!"

[Straw Man]

There are horror stories in every country

We've got plenty of our own.

More kids around the planet die of diarrhea than they do being born prematurely in the UK

If this woman lived in America she might not even be able to afford insurance

If she were poor and the Republican/Christian party had their way her her kids wouldn't even get access to CHIP.

Other than abortion, most so called christians don't give a rats ass about the sanctity of life

Spare me the fake outrage  

[Straw Man]

Note that business didn't pick up here, until I mentioned Obama and his controversial involvement in the infant "born alive" issue in Illinois.

Another one of those things that make you say, "HMMMMM!!!!!!"

the only one who cares about that is you

it's a non-issue for most of us who are living in the present day

we've got enough shit to worry about now and couldn't give a shit what Obama's rationale (or secret motive) for something he voted against 8 years ago as a state senator.

The only one going HMMMM is you and I suspect that's just the buzz that you hear in your head all the time

[Soul Crusher]

the only one who cares about that is you

it's a non-issue for most of us who are living in the present day

we've got enough shit to worry about now and couldn't give a shit what Obama's rationale (or secret motive) for something he voted against 8 years ago as a state senator.

The only one going HMMMM is you and I suspect that's just the buzz that you hear in your head all the time

100% Straw

1.  Cap & trade taxes looming
2.  Obamacare tax looming
3.  Stimulus is failing horribly
4.  We are cutting our nukes
5.  UE racing to over 10% 

We have a ton of issues more important to deal with, I agree. 

[tu_holmes]

100% Straw

1.  Cap & trade taxes looming
2.  Obamacare tax looming
3.  Stimulus is failing horribly
4.  We are cutting our nukes
5.  UE racing to over 10% 

We have a ton of issues more important to deal with, I agree. 

How is cutting our nukes an important issue?

We have enough nukes to blow the world up 200 times over and you think cutting a few is a big deal?

Why do I even post on this politics board is beyond me.

Fuck it... I quit.

[lax]

no but some uninformed people still think so

and you must think he was born in Hawaii

[lax]

LOL tell that to the left and obama who use canada and europe as examples of their views on healthcare jack ass

 

bingo

[lax]

There are horror stories in every country

We've got plenty of our own.

More kids around the planet die of diarrhea than they do being born prematurely in the UK

If this woman lived in America she might not even be able to afford insurance

she would not need it

If she were poor and the Republican/Christian party had their way her her kids wouldn't even get access to CHIP.

Other than abortion, most so called christians don't give a rats ass about the sanctity of life

Spare me the fake outrage  

[Soul Crusher]

TU:  His stated goal is to eliminate all nukes altogether.  

[Purge_WTF]

This woman begged for her son to be saved and these folks REFUSED to do it, simply because he was two days shy of the minimum requirement for care, coupled with their not willing to be finanically or medically involved in the matter.

  The health insurance protection racketeers agencies do the same thing 21% of the time.

  I don't trust big government healthcare or corporations who are in bed with said government (there's a word for that). I wish there was some alternative.

[Soul Crusher]

  The health insurance protection racketeers agencies do the same thing 21% of the time.

  I don't trust big government healthcare or corporations who are in bed with said government (there's a word for that). I wish there was some alternative.

My dad told me last night he remembers paying a family doc $25 back in the day for an office visit and the doc took care of everything.  Sure they did not have fancy crap back then, but the current system really sucks and bears nothing related to a true marketplace.   

[MCWAY]

the only one who cares about that is you

Are you always this woefullly wrong, or is this a show just for me?

it's a non-issue for most of us who are living in the present day

we've got enough shit to worry about now and couldn't give a shit what Obama's rationale (or secret motive) for something he voted against 8 years ago as a state senator.

The only one going HMMMM is you and I suspect that's just the buzz that you hear in your head all the time

But, in true foot-gobbling fashion, you don't come here, running your mouth, until I mention Obama.

Grey Poupon?

There are horror stories in every country

We've got plenty of our own.

More kids around the planet die of diarrhea than they do being born prematurely in the UK

If this woman lived in America she might not even be able to afford insurance

Saying something stupid comes all too easily for you. Even if this woman couldn't afford health insurance, most American doctors would not just stand idle and let her baby DIE.

If she were poor and the Republican/Christian party had their way her her kids wouldn't even get access to CHIP.

Once again, foolheartedy statementsdrip from your lips.

Other than abortion, most so called christians don't give a rats ass about the sanctity of life

Spare me the fake outrage  

Dead wrong, and pitifully poitntless as usual, Straw Man. There's a clue in that head of yours somewhere.

[MCWAY]

  The health insurance protection racketeers agencies do the same thing 21% of the time.

That is quite awful. But, doing something like that 90-95% of the time (based on policy) is far worse.

  I don't trust big government healthcare or corporations who are in bed with said government (there's a word for that). I wish there was some alternative.

Indeed, there is a word for that. Unfortunately, in too many cases, the only difference is whether the pimp dons a blue or red hat and cane.