Betty, You are better be glad I don't visit that message
board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I once had a very heated discussion along these same
lines with a researcher/author who "specialty" is premature children. This
person had the nerve to post a letter by a neotologist who claimed ,much
along the lines of  your poster , that the extremely premature/
micropreemies should not even be given the chance to life because their
medical care ticket price is so high and can better used in other
ays( Inoculations of 3rd world countries seem to be a key selling point). My
answer. My son fit all the criteria to not be saved. When he had the
respiratory/cardiac arrest when he was 3 weeks old and up to the  2# range,
his doctors strongly urged us to let Alex go because he was sure to have
MR/high degree of physical disabilities. Obviously we choose to continue the
fight and Alex was won. His bill for 11 weeks of NICU was 3/4 of a million
dollars. My reply to your poster as well as my "expert" who posted  was
simply this. Private medical insurance paid that bill. No matter how you
want to tug heartstrings with those kids in underdeveloped countries, even
if we had chosen to let Alex go, none of the money saved could be used by
the 3rd world population. It is ours to use for our family only. A request
to donate "saved" money from denying my child treatment still wouldn't go to
another country or anyone else and I can already hear the insurance
companies laughing hysterically at such a request. In the case of public
funds being used, the same principal hold even more true, especially with
bureaucratic red-tape, the fund can only be used for a certain purpose and
if 3rd world immunizations isn't on the list of approved uses, even letting
high maintance kids die won't release that money for immuzations elsewhere.
It will simply go to another high risk kid.Alex also has a good life. Warm
shelter, food as he desires adequate clothes, access to  education, and
obviously good medical care. Even with multiple disabilities his life is
much better off than the children in underdeveloped countries and giving
them a bunch of immunizations isn't going to change their lifestyles.
 If by chance, immunizations became available to everyone in the third
world just for the asking, there' no guarantee anyone will ask. Here in the
good old USA there is a federal program that provides un/underinsured
children access to immunization and basic well child visits called CHIP
 Children's Health Insurance Plan). There are frequent pleas in our local
paper for families to sign up because only about 1/4 of those who qualify
bother apply. Many parents refuse the inoculations for religious as well as
health reasons. If the children of America are underimmunized all the money
in the world won't get even less developed countries a higher immunization
record. Saying all that Alex  and the conjoined twins have just as much
right to life ( or at least be given a chance to have a life) as any child
anywhere.
Joanne
----- Original Message -----
From: Betty B <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:38 AM
Subject: Do we have a duty to die?


> Howdy folks,
<SNIP>
.  What better opportunity could I have to
> respond than to the following post regarding an operation to separate
> conjoined twins in Nepal:
>
> "with so many people short of basic care, it is ludicrus to allow these
babes
> to come to term. the money spent to keep the two alive ould have
innoculated
> the population of Nepal
> W.S. I NOW FEAR TO SIGN"
>