Should Cameron help disabled girl?

Scroll to see replies

I have to agree with an earlier post.
Not everyone can be saved.
Sometimes we need to just sit back and think whether its worth it.
1 life costing that much per year. Surely those funds could be put to better use in, say, the army? People who regularly risk their lives to save others?
What about funding the police force more, who have been suffering cuts. That may help save lives.
Or poorer countries who dont even have healthcare?
I don't believe a price can be put on a human life but apart from the mothers feelings, are there any other benefits to doing this?

Its the same choice as someone turning off a persons life support when they're in a coma. Sometimes it just needs to be done, no matter how horrible or heart breaking it is.

Edit: although I do agree that huge amounts of money are wasted and given as bonus' etc..., but the above is just my opinion on the matter.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 21

Medicz

If it cost £100,000 per year for just ONE person its a bit wrong to spend ALL that on one person seems morally wrong considering theres millions of people dying from other disorders. I dont have an opinion on this, but for organisations like NICE have to make a difficult decision on this one. It cost too much, were as the money could be spent on treating other people and saving lives instead of improving the quality of one.

I can see exactly why someone would refuse this child the £100,000 per year. £100,000 can easily be used to buy certain medical equipment that could potentially save thousands of lifes per year.

Reply 22

CookieDoughLove

I understand the girl needs help, but she isn't the only one in the country, it would unfair to help her and not others in the same situation. So if they help her, I think they should do something to help the rest.

Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey

Then put her down. Poor use of tax payers money.

Put her down? That's ****ing disgusting. Don't you have a heart?

Reply 23

Oh my Ms. Coffey

Original post by CookieDoughLove

Mate she cant feel anything.

Reply 24

silverbolt

Original post by Aj12

It may be one case but it represents a whole load of people all needing the support. How would it be fair in anyway to fund one girl and not all the other cases.

whislt certainly an admirable idealology its completely impractical, you cant help one person and not others so you would end forking out billions of pounds our economy simply doesnt have. We'd go bankrupt

Reply 25

silverbolt

Original post by CookieDoughLove

Put her down? That's ****ing disgusting. Don't you have a heart?

Interesting, one could argue that it is a greater degree of kindness to euthanase her, after all we put dogs to sleep out of mercy yet we keep people alive ind readful, painful and humiliating conditions. Personally i think thats worse

Reply 26

RadioHawk

Original post by RedGuy

neggers are coming to your post.

misread that at first....

Reply 27

tbm

Original post by Nayred

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110120/tuk-pm-concerned-by-mother-s-care-accusa-45dbed5.html

Riven Vincent, a mother of a disabled girl who is blind and has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and epilepsy, accused David Cameron of breaking his promise to care for her daughter who cannot walk, talk or sit up. The daughter receives six hours of help which costs £15 an hour. However she needs 24 hour protection which would cost £2,000 a week. That is £104000 a year! Not to mention the mental stress it has on those who care for Holly.

Should the NHS spend this influx of money on Holly? Would it be fair to deny the inseparability that Riven Vincent has with her ginger, innocent daughter and let her die?

Whats being ginger got to do with anything? Have you put that in just to be funny? :rolleyes:

Its a very, very sad situation to be in. However, a residential home might be better for her, or even just respite care to allow the family a break every now and again.

Ive worked in special schools so Ive seen lots of children with the same sort of needs, its heartbreaking. The care staff were fantastic and would do their best but most days I came out of there utterly depressed at the lack of quality of life these children had and could not understand how their parents managed. So I can see why the mother feels she has no other option but to put her into care.

Reply 28

fodé

The principle is the following: choose the option with the least losses. If you can help 50 people with the same amount of money that you would use for the lil' girl, then do it. Two parents and a few relatives will hate you, but 100 parents and a lot of relatives will be greatful.

I'm against euthanasia, but I'm also against money spent on irremediable causes.

Reply 29

Einheri

Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey

Then put her down. Poor use of tax payers money.

As horrible as it may sound I have to agree. On an individual level she's living an undignified and terrible life, of which she's barely concious anyway - I,
personally, would rather be dead than have her "life". On a societal level she is a drain on the economy and a detriment to the genepool - every strong society throughout history (Vikings, Spartans, Romans, Mongols, et cetera) has exposed the weak and sickly if nature didn't pop them off first.

Reply 30

Steevee

Why? Why should she have the money that could give 4/5 people with cancer a second chance?

Or 5 people with Alzeihmers an extra year of real life?

How about a kidney transplant or two for some dieing kids?

The fact is, that girl has no quality of life. She can't do anything. The money should be prioritised to where it wil do most good.

Say it's heartless, neg me, do whatever, she does not deserve that money more than other people.

Reply 31

Swell

Should he? Yes

Will he? No, giving more money to the welfare system is a no go for Cameron and his Tory cronies.

Reply 32

MostCompetitive

Of course - only heartless people wouldn't. Then again, he is heartless.

Reply 33

Emor

There is no right or wrong decision.
I feel sorry for Cameron having to deal with such a difficult situation and so personal for him.
EMZ.

Reply 34

overtherainbow

unfortunately the number of people who would like the option of 24hr care is huge, be they old people or disabled people and the situation is always distressing to the rest of the family but they are pushing for the most expensive option which isnt really fair- there are other options in place, the NHS doesnt abandon people completely they just give them options they dont like. And for the mother to direct it to Cameron who had a disabled child die is unfair as he will obviously care but his hands are pretty tied.

Reply 35

Broderss

I think it's wrong to keep this child alive. As well as being ginger it has a number of other disabilities meaning it can not contribute to society and it is cruel to keep it alive as it can't do anything. That mother is a loon, but it's not her fault nature's mother instincts are so strong.

Reply 36

WelshBluebird

Original post by overtherainbow

1 - it isn't about "liking" 24 hour care. Sometimes it is needed. My gran realistically needed 24/7 care. We got around it by having the carers in three times a day, but one of us always over there 24 hours a day. It was very hard, and if my mother had a full time job it would have been impossible. Putting her in a care home was not an option, as unless you have a lot of money they are not good places to be in.

2 - Sadly you are very naive. As I said, the amount of fighting my family had to do with the NHS was crazy. They simply could not accept it was their responsibility to provide care. They kept trying to make excuses about my grans care being social and not medical (thus meaning we would have to pay), when anyone who has a pair of working eyes could see it was both (even the carers themselves acknowledged this).

Reply 37

overtherainbow

Original post by WelshBluebird

actually im in the same situation as you with my grandma. and my mum has to hold down a full time job and she has to live with us. i know care homes arent nice places to be (depending on where you live but they are an option, and one many people have to take. people should focus on improving them for the good of many than shelling out on 24 hour care for one person. and yes the nhs dont like giving out the expensive option but they do provide the option of a care home etc so its not about letting the girl die as people have said in this thread...

Reply 38

WelshBluebird

Original post by overtherainbow

Put it like this. My grans sister also suffered from it. She didn't have the immediate family around to support her, and so she went into a care home. The speed at which she deteriorated in the home was much much faster than when she wasn't in the home.
Even with my gran we saw the same. We did managed to get respite care every now and again, but everytime she came out of respite (2 weeks at a time) she was so much worse than what she was when she went in.

As I said, unless you have the money, care homes are essentially places to die in.
As brilliant as most of the staff are, they simply do not have the time or resources that the people in the care homes actually need.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 39

River85

Original post by Broderss

It is a she. A person.

She can do something - provide love and enjoyment for her mother.

So she cannot "contribute" to society. I can name a number of people who don't work (and never will). Don't pay National Insurance. Don't pay tax (except VAT). Who clog up the NHS. Don't volunteer or do anything for the community.

Should we euthanise them?