Interesting torrent I found

veXual

demonspawn wrote: »

They torture babies, or encourage parents to torture their babies and have the state pay for it. Happy now?

How do they torture babies?? They provide care/support during the child's lifespan to both the child and the family. There is nothing there to suggest that they attempt to prolong an ill child's life, only make them as comfortable as they possibly can.

This would be similar to a palliative care unit, it's purpose is to support someone who is terminally ill. Do you oppose something like that as well?

Saying the Jack and Jill foundation torture children is a bit of an outlandish statement...

Duiske

veXual wrote: »

How do they torture babies?? They provide care/support during the child's lifespan to both the child and the family. There is nothing there to suggest that they attempt to prolong an ill child's life, only make them as comfortable as they possibly can.

This would be similar to a palliative care unit, it's purpose is to support someone who is terminally ill. Do you oppose something like that as well?

Saying the Jack and Jill foundation torture children is a bit of an outlandish statement...

I think he knows all that, but its just whatever is lacking in him makes him feel the need to come out with these "Look at Me, I'm controversial" type statements. Nothing controversial about him or his statements though. Just ridiculously ignorant of basic facts.

gizmo

demonspawn wrote: »

Save your sympathy for the babies forced to suffer untold agony by your wonderful "charity". I don't need or want it.

Again I'll ask for some proof or evidence here? You're now moving into libelous territory amongst other things...

Orion

Pure comedy gold

demonspawn

gizmo wrote: »

Again I'll ask for some proof or evidence here? You're now moving into libelous territory amongst other things...

It's a "charity" who's aim is the prolong the pain and suffering of mortally ill children. For what purpose they are doing this one can only guess. Any person with the slightest bit of compassion would seek the lessen a child's pain and suffering, not prolong it with drugs, endless surgeries, or whatever else these sick people do to children.

Jack lived for 22 months – a desperate and painful life. A mix of drugs, physio, postural drainage, seizures, reflux operations, gastrostomy and suctioning.

Looks like pornography for sadists to me, something like what Joseph Mengele would get off on.

gizmo

demonspawn wrote: »

It's a "charity" who's aim is the prolong the pain and suffering of mortally ill children. For what purpose they are doing this one can only guess. Any person with the slightest bit of compassion would seek the lessen a child's pain and suffering, not prolong it with drugs, endless surgeries, or whatever else these sick people do to children.

You still haven't given any proof.

If your sole objection is the fact that they provide care and support to sick kids when you would prefer for them to be killed, what you're suggesting is forced euthanasia and eugenics.

demonspawn wrote: »

Looks like pornography for sadists to me, something like what Joseph Mengele would get off on.

So poor Jack should have been put out of his misery instead of being given a change to live? Odd that you'd compare it to the behavior of Mengele when your alternative is exactly what the Nazi's themselves advocated.

demonspawn

gizmo wrote: »

If your sole objection is the fact that they provide care and support to sick kids when you would prefer for them to be killed, what you're suggesting is forced euthanasia and eugenics.

Yes, I believe in eugenics based solely on compassionate grounds. To allow a child to die naturally instead of pumping them full of drugs to keep them alive for a short life of untold pain and suffering. Who's the sadist in that scenario?

So poor Jack should have been put out of his misery instead of being given a change to live? Odd that you'd compare it to the behavior of Mengele when your alternative is exactly what the Nazi's themselves advocated.

The child had no chance of survival. The doctor told the parents this. All the parents are doing is prolonging the child's suffering because of their inability to come to terms with reality. Get your facts straight before you try to argue whatever point you're trying to make. The child had already died two days after his birth but was resuscitated.

gizmo

demonspawn wrote: »

Yes, I believe in eugenics based solely on compassionate grounds. To allow a child to die naturally instead of pumping them full of drugs to keep them alive for a short life of untold pain and suffering. Who's the sadist in that scenario?

I assume you meant euthanasia there as "compassionate grounds" doesn't really apply to eugenics. As for whether the child should be allowed to die, what of those children who do make a recovery?

demonspawn wrote: »

The child had no chance of survival. The doctor told the parents this. All the parents are doing is prolonging the child's suffering because of their inability to come to terms with reality. Get your facts straight before you try to argue whatever point you're trying to make. The child had already died two days after his birth but was resuscitated.

It's hard to get "facts" after you provided only a first name, no source and no further details on the case. This is where my numerous calls for proof come in handy.

As for the case in question, I'm sure it describes many other cases, including those in which the child did make a recovery and went on to live for many more years to come. These are the children you are condemning to death by withholding treatment.

demonspawn

gizmo wrote: »

It's hard to get "facts" after you provided only a first name, no source and no further details on the case. This is where my numerous calls for proof come in handy.

What proof do you want? That story is from the Jack and Jill website which I've already linked so give a rest. Go ask them where they got it.

As for the case in question, I'm sure it describes many other cases, including those in which the child did make a recovery and went on to live for many more years to come. These are the children you are condemning to death by withholding treatment.

Those children are going to die regardless. Terminally ill means they are going to die regardless of what you do. There are some things we can do to make children more comfortable for the duration of their lives. Pumping them full of drugs is not one of them. That is no life to live.

I'm done with this argument as it's just winding me up. If you have a problem with what I believe then that's fine. I really don't give a sh*t however, so don't waste any more of your time or my own on this discussion.

gizmo

demonspawn wrote: »

Those children are going to die regardless. Terminally ill means they are going to die regardless of what you do. There are some things we can do to make children more comfortable for the duration of their lives. Pumping them full of drugs is not one of them. That is no life to live.

Again it depends on individual cases, some children will be able to live part of their lives with non invasive care and drugs which are not detrimental to them while they are alive. Either way however, none of us here are qualified to make those kinds of calls and charities such as these exist to make the lives of the people involved easier.

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm done with this argument as it's just winding me up. If you have a problem with what I believe then that's fine. I really don't give a sh*t however, so don't waste any more of your time or my own on this discussion.

Sorry but that's not how a forum works, if you're going to accuse a charity foundation whose aim is to provide care and support for sick children, regardless of their condition, and their parents of the things you've described then you're going to have to deal with questioning and criticism.