A Moral Dilemma for you

morals and goodness: my worst enemies.

------------------

All your base are belong to us! How Are you gentlemen?

Fish?
***********************
Welcome to your doom!!!
***********************

[debiler]

Originally posted by Kinslayer: This is a tough one, being English myself I know that there are plenty of English people in this country waiting on organ transplants that will save their lives. Some of these are kids yet they sit on waiting lists due to a lack of funding. Now there is a foreigner who has voluntarily had fertility treatment and been in the country a matter of weeks and someone must decide if she gets the £600,000 worth of treatment for her babies, that in all likelihood will not pull through, ahead of youngsters awaiting routine life saving operations. The answer should be for Libya to cover any costs accrued but we can all guess what the chances of this are. It's cases like these that make you wonder if a footballer, actor or company director really should get the extortionate salaries they do when people's lives are in the balance because of money.

Good point, Kinslayer! BTW, Donut, I didn´t want to offend you or the services you do in your job. But I don´t know enough about how such issues are handled in Germany, so I just tried to express my opinion. And sort of paying for human lives is sick.


------------------
Calvin the bold he´s the one!

[MILAMBER]

Living in Southern California this is a big issue, because we have tons of immigrants from Mexico, legal and illegal. Accidents happen, but always, but always the hospitals will do what they can to save the person and then try and work out the financing later. We all get money taken out with our taxes to help pay for incidents like the one described.

------------------
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George Patton (1885-1945)

Member of CLAN HADB

[Larry_OHF]

I like what Kinslayer and Milamber have both said.

There are many children on waiting lists that can actually tell you with their own voices how bad it hurts. They have been waiting, suffering, and have a better chance at good lives if they can just be seen, or have the money raise/donated to help out. If a country can not pay for them to recover to a normal way of life, what chances does a newcomer to the world of pain have at getting special attention? 1 million dollars could cure alot of kids at once, or one family of newbornes that are so premature that they may never have a good chance at life.

I am glad I do not have to be a judge of who lives and who dies, but in this case, I would say that if I had a million dollars to just give, I would give it to the kid or kids that have better chances of recovery, so that I would not feel the money was thrown away. I would hate it if I gave it to a kid that died, anyway, and then a little 5 year old girl come up to me and ask for help, and I realize that my money could have given her a life, without the chance of failure. Does that make since??

------------------

Devoted member of the Ironworks
Loyal guardian of the OHF
Member of the Ancients' club

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Donut: So your dilemmas are: What would happen to these children in your country? (more a question than a dilemma) What should happen to these children? Who should pay for the care?

In the US, I think typically the needed care would be given by the hospital, which would seek to be reimbursed by a variety of possible sources, including various govt sources and/or insurance sources. But there can be other ways of dealing with the "cost" to the hospital, for example large tax credits. It doesn't necessarily mean that the hospital is harmed in some significant way, or that overall medical care is weakened for the rest of society. So why not do it?

[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 08-16-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 08-16-2001).]

[Cloudbringer]

Donut, that's a heartbreaking scenario. My gut reaction is to say money means nothing.. lives are at stake and these children are NOT responsible for being brought into the world in that manner. So they must be given all due and necessary care.

Billing aside, the moral issue is quite simple. Give whatever aid you can. Then as to the payment (after the children are cared for!), I guess the government must decide if they want to pursue repayment from the family and/or their home country. Yes, I do realize that the money spent could have been put toward any number of other needs and some of them, as was noted, might have also been children in need. Tough choice and one I'm very glad I don't have to make. May God Bless those who do.

Cloudy

------------------


Raindancer of the Laughing Hyenas Clan
Storm-Queen
StormCloud of the Black Knight: Heart Mind Soul Forever
"To sleep, perchance to dream..."

[This message has been edited by Cloudbringer (edited 08-16-2001).]

[Harkoliar]

let me ask you a question for a question.

if you had 1 million dollars ready and with that kind of situation BUT with also the same amount of money, you would be able to save at least 20 people. now i ask you, what would you do...

truth is... this moral thing sucks... it is just the same with mercy killing. i hope never to encounter this kind of problem because any way you go, YOU LOSE!

------------------
Revived I Am to hunt this world... Banish ye evil or face my wrath...

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Donut: This is the scenario. A post-graduate student arrives in your country from Libya as part of a sponsored student programme. He brings his pregnant wife with him, she has recently undergone fertility treatment in her own country. A few weeks after they arrive, and 12 weeks premature she gives birth to sextuplets having had an emergency caesarian delivery carried out by a team of 14 doctors and nurses. The weakest baby, weighing just 340g dies shortly after birth. Of the remaining the heaviest is just 2lb (1 kg). The children will need to be kept in intensive care for about three months, the mother is also recovering in hospital. Without the care they will almost certainly die). The total cost of medical care is likely to be over £600,000 (1 million US$). They have no medical insurance. So your dilemmas are: What would happen to these children in your country? (more a question than a dilemma) What should happen to these children? Who should pay for the care?

I'm not sure what would happen to them in Australia, to tell you the truth - but I can't imagine that they would be turned out to die. I can't imagine any doctor taking the Hippocratic oath being party to that type of decision.

Without question they should be taken care of by the hospital, and some deal worked out with the country they originated from. Turning them out is out of the question.

I'm glad that I don't have to make that kind of decision.

------------------

[Donut]

Okay - there was never any chance that these children would not receive the best treatment available. Within the NHS the patient is always treated first and the bureaucracy dealt with after.

Anyone residing in the United Kingdom is entitled to free treatment anyway. That doesn't mean that you have to have been here for 6 months - only that it is your intention to stay here for more than six months. This includes students on a course of study. Free treatment is not dependent on paying tax here.

For visitors here for less than 6 months treatment is free if your country has a reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom. This includes most of Europe and members of the Commonwealth. Treatment for these groups is only free for medical problems which arise whilst here or for existing problems which worsen.

The question of how much it will cost to keep these children in hospital is a bit of a red herring. The cost of the intensive care cots has already been allocated to the hospital. It's not as if these children are stopping a fee paying patient from being there. The only drawback is that these five beds are not available to other babies. There are 12 intensive care beds at the hospital and last night there were 2 cots available.

The decision about pursuing funding lies with the service provider (in this case the hospital). They are currently looking into the family's circumstances and will decide whether to ask the father's company or the Libyan government to meet the cost of treatment. Personally I think a letter to that nice Mr Gadaffi might do the trick . Otherwise they can sell their story to the tabloids or TV - and I'm sure companies that produce baby care items will pay them for endorsements.

There have been some murmurs from local politicians abought the NHS being a soft touch for foreigners and debating if this was pre-planned. Social Services visited the hospital last week when the mother went into labour to assess the family's needs when they leave hospital. It's thought they will need larger accommodation and assistance with everyday care.

debiler, I can tell you that in Germany the family would have recieved free care if the mother had paid the monthly health insurance of DM79 (£29)

I deliberately didn't express my own view in my original post. Just to make my own opinions clear, I'm happy that the family are receiving the necessary treatment and I hope we can recover the cost, but really that would be a bonus.


BTW - the five remaining babies are all making good progress




------------------

Save Chip - Don't let Sarah win!
Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas

[Kinslayer]

The sad thing about all this though is that there is now another twist in the tale. A pregnant English lady with quads(occurring naturally, not due to fertility treatment) has just been told by three hospitals that she will not be able to have her children there due to a lack of intensive care units bought on by funding cuts. Fawzia Adala, the Libyan mother, has now sold her story to several tabloids and magazines for considerable sums of money and has offered no financial aid to a hospital now out of pocket by a considerable sum. Finally, Fawzia's doctor in Libya has insisted that she was advised not to travel until after the birth of the babies and arrangements had been made for her to give birth in Tripoli. Surely, for countries that are not part of the health care agreement some form of medical insurance should be compulsory when travelling abroad or, at the very least, women undergoing fertility treatment banned from travelling in the final four moths of pregnancy?