Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    A couple, originally from Kenya have won a legal battle to bring a child, with no limbs, they have just adopted to the UK for expert medical care. The child has no limbs due to his birth mother taking Thalidomide, used to treat leprosy, whist pregnant.

    Apparently the nation took him to their hearts and campaigned to get him over here for treatment. :puke: Well Done. What they don’t realise is that this heart warming little fight has probably cost them so much. This country is a walk over.

    My question is why should we, Britain, pay for a disabled child from another country, whose adopted parents aren’t even British, to have expensive treatment in the first place? Its absolutely baffling.

    On top of that, even with the best medical treatment, this child will still have a poor quality of life. Now before you all mention ‘oh but medicine is much more advanced theses days’ I know it is, my point is that he will under go years of painful treatment, only to still be classed as disabled. This is not fair on the child.

    In conclusion I feel this whole situation is disgusting. The child should not be brought into the country to have treatment which he is not entitled to. Nor should he be brought into the country full stop. Our NHS is stretched to the max now, British children are on waiting lists to have treatments for various ailments, why on Earth should they suffer for this child, whose parents have yet to contribute anything to this country?

    Any comments appreciated, but please don’t bother aiming to attack me personally, as certain people have relied on so far. The point of this discussion/debate is to bring awareness to the issue.
    Wow, I think I found my twin.

    I agree.

    However, you can argue that we're all one people and should help each other. But I don't see why a child who is ill through the fault of the mother should receive any preferential treatment over the many other children who are starving to death or dying of AIDS every day.

    To Britain, I damn well hope a British kid is worth more than a Kenyan one. "Sorry british kid, you can't have your life saving treatment today, this kenyan kid is more important than you." We live here, we were born here, this is our country and I think we have a right to be put number one! It'd be like your parents putting you second to someone elses kid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Wow, I think I found my twin.

    I agree.

    However, you can argue that we're all one people and should help each other. But I don't see why a child who is ill through the fault of the mother should receive any preferential treatment over the many other children who are starving to death or dying of AIDS every day.

    To Britain, I damn well hope a British kid is worth more than a Kenyan one. "Sorry british kid, you can't have your life saving treatment today, this kenyan kid is more important than you." We live here, we were born here, this is our country and I think we have a right to be put number one! It'd be like your parents putting you second to someone elses kid.
    Have you actually read the thread? This Kenyan kid's surgery is being paid for by one particular person, not the NHS. The question of priorities doesn't even come into it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Wow, I think I found my twin.

    I agree.

    However, you can argue that we're all one people and should help each other. But I don't see why a child who is ill through the fault of the mother should receive any preferential treatment over the many other children who are starving to death or dying of AIDS every day.

    To Britain, I damn well hope a British kid is worth more than a Kenyan one. "Sorry british kid, you can't have your life saving treatment today, this kenyan kid is more important than you." We live here, we were born here, this is our country and I think we have a right to be put number one! It'd be like your parents putting you second to someone elses kid.
    Yay! Finally someone who has a bit of sense and can see things the way they are! Remind me to pos rep you tomorrow
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    So Straight Talker - about your claim that British donators will be angry that their money isn't going to help British victims.

    I've got news for you. The drug causing Thalidomide was withdrawn in Britain by about 1960. It is still legal in other parts of the world however, including in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. As a result, how many people are really going to expect that their money is spent on British children, when British children are so much less likely to get Thalidomide in the first place?

    Explain that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    So Straight Talker - about your claim that British donators will be angry that their money isn't going to help British victims.

    I've got news for you. The drug causing Thalidomide was withdrawn in Britain by about 1960. It is still legal in other parts of the world however, including in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. As a result, how many people are really going to expect that their money is spent on British children, when British children are so much less likely to get Thalidomide in the first place?

    Explain that.
    The charity does not explicitly state it is just for children, just in this case with Freddie it was. You do realise that there could be many 40 year olds affected by it. Its not difficult maths, even for you.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    That was the 5th time the same question was posed to you.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The charity does not explicitly state it is just for children, just in this case with Freddie it was. You do realise that there could be many 40 year olds affected by it.
    That wasn't so hard now, was it?

    We'll ignore the fact that people who donated would probably prefer for the child to be treated than for a forty year old who is already treated as well as modern medicine can to be helped.

    However,
    it seems the president of the charity is paying for the treatment....on the site it says, "Our President Freddie Astbury, who was also born without arms or legs is paying for little Freddie's medical treatment ". kind man!
    The charity's president is funding the treatment, not donations.

    Its not difficult maths, even for you.
    I thought you didn't like personal insults? Heh, and that's probably the stupidest possible thing to insult me on.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Actually you were lightning fast with that reply, you must have been waiting for me to reply so you could get a question in when I was online, thats rather pathetic. I think you should in fact find some friends and go out, it is a Saturday night. I intend to go out now and have fun, so you replying will probably be a waste of time, so just to let you know you don't have to sit glued to your computer.
    There's this handy thing, when a thread is posted in, it appears at the top of the forum, so I don't have to continually refresh this page.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    why is this thread still open?? someone PLEASE shut it. there is no debate anymore! HIS CARE IS BEING PAID FOR PRIVATELY
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your idea that we are so parochial in this country that we can't help a single child is appalling. It's possibly the nastiest posting I've ever seen.

    I have personally done something similar - brought a child into the UK for treatment, without which she'd have died. We raised the money for her treatment and she was operated on in a private hospital. No UK child suffered one iota as part of saving her. She's now alive, happy and being put to bed.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    Yay! Finally someone who has a bit of sense and can see things the way they are! Remind me to pos rep you tomorrow
    Luckily, your positive rep is worth approximately zero. It is meaningless, much like the majority of your posts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    your positive rep is worth approximately zero.
    Not even that - look at the gem colour. You can't rep at all with less than 20 rep points. Still that may be what ST is trolling for.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    And to think that I have been warned by moderators for "harassment" of ST, when I was just pressing her to ANSWER A DAMN QUESTION, which she has in fact failed to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CogitoErgoSum)
    why is this thread still open?? someone PLEASE shut it. there is no debate anymore! HIS CARE IS BEING PAID FOR PRIVATELY
    Its open because people are allowed to speak their mind freely. If you want prematurely shut threads go to the About forum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    Actually you were lightning fast with that reply, you must have been waiting for me to reply so you could get a question in when I was online, thats rather pathetic. I think you should in fact find some friends and go out, it is a Saturday night. I intend to go out now and have fun, so you replying will probably be a waste of time, so just to let you know you don't have to sit glued to your computer.
    largely irrelevant post. time would probably be better spent responding to the questions and responses that have been posted and which you seem to want to ignore...though ic an see why you would want to.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    British charities shouldn't use money donated by Brits to help those abroad?

    Someone had better tell Oxfam...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    I've got news for you. The drug causing Thalidomide was withdrawn in Britain by about 1960. It is still legal in other parts of the world however, including in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. As a result, how many people are really going to expect that their money is spent on British children, when British children are so much less likely to get Thalidomide in the first place?

    Explain that.
    Firstly, there are people aged 45 and over still living with the effects.

    Secondly, the world knows the problems of this drug. If a mother takes it when pregnant, is there really anyone else to blame for the child's defects? It's like me smoking 100 a day then complaining when I get lung cancer (btw I don't smoke!!).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Have you actually read the thread? This Kenyan kid's surgery is being paid for by one particular person, not the NHS. The question of priorities doesn't even come into it.
    Yes I have read the thread, cheers. From your comments it doesn't seem as if you're reading what I've said; perhaps you can show me where I said the kid's treatment was being paid for by the NHS. The question of priorities was posed earlier: I am giving my view. Have YOU read the thread?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Firstly, there are people aged 45 and over still living with the effects.

    Secondly, the world knows the problems of this drug. If a mother takes it when pregnant, is there really anyone else to blame for the child's defects? It's like me smoking 100 a day then complaining when I get lung cancer (btw I don't smoke!!).
    Do the mothers know though? If you were given a drug by your doctor, wouldn't you just take it rather than questioning its safety? You would just assume that it would be OK!

    People have sued McDonalds for making them fat, and products have all kind of what seems like stupid warnings because there are some people that don't know.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Firstly, there are people aged 45 and over still living with the effects.

    Secondly, the world knows the problems of this drug. If a mother takes it when pregnant, is there really anyone else to blame for the child's defects? It's like me smoking 100 a day then complaining when I get lung cancer (btw I don't smoke!!).

    So should the cancer charities not use their resources to help those who are ill as a direct result of smoking? They know what smoking does to your body. (Yes, i'm aware that some smokers didn't know when they started. They're in the minority)

    Maybe if NHS resources were being drained, then threadstarter would have a point. But the operation is private, being funded by a charity that can spend its money, within reason, any way it want. We certainly have no right to question it, unless we donate. I'm sure the people who have donated to the charity wanted to help those affected by the adverse effects of thalidomide. For that reason, I'm also sure that they'd be delighted that something is being done to help this child. Of course, there may well be someone who isn't happy. But unless they voice their objections, I'm fairly certain that it's a safe bet to assume that that's not the case.

    Basically, threadstarter seems to be taking issue with a charity spending its own money to achieve what it was set up to do in the first place... As its private, the other issues that s/he seemed to have with British txpayers' money and NHS resources are, well, non existent.
 
 
 

3,324

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.