![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
virginangelicI know I have not been updating of late. Hell, I barely tweet - I just troll and like tweets more than tweeting. Regardless, got an issue I just need to let go off my chest.
So there's this fb appeal for this algerian toddler/infant who has hydrocephalus and spinal bifida. They are canvassing for funds and I got 'invited' to help donate. Erm...no thanks?
Main issue though is this appeal for 28 thousand euros for a surgery. I'm skeptical about it. Having looked through the facts online, I found out that such patients normally do not live beyond what, 10 years of age? Would this surgery help or would it impend the family? And yes, it is NOT a cure.
It's an ethical issue - by prolonging the life of this disabled child through such an expensive method it would further throw the family into the depths of financial hardship. I know, I know that every parents wants the best for their child, that every life borned deserves a chance to live but at what cost?
Sure, donations can pour in but after the surgery, who's going to foot for the physio, the expensive contraptions like leg braces and the likes? Call me a robot for all i care but i am certain that society will turn a blind eye - once the surgery is successful, that's it. the bucks will stop there. and the family will thus have to bear the financial burdens of such a costly decision.
I know that if I am a parent of that child, I will try my best to prolong my child's life with me...but then, what IF the child will merely lead a longer life of pain? Would it then be considered merciful instead to just live with the child's condition and spend as much time as possible before the inevitable? (As opposed to actively seeking out treatments and the likes to prolong the child's life further?)
One can and will argue that this is like saying end stage cancer patients should not go for chemo, or that hiv/aids patients should not have to have drugs to prolong their lives. How about no? That's unfair - it's like comparing an apple to say an orange.
Urgh, moral ethical dilemma.
Obviously I am ill-equipped and frankly lazy to think further about this issue and look into this further. What is your take though?
Would you donate to this cause or would you like me, step back and choose not to?
So there's this fb appeal for this algerian toddler/infant who has hydrocephalus and spinal bifida. They are canvassing for funds and I got 'invited' to help donate. Erm...no thanks?
Main issue though is this appeal for 28 thousand euros for a surgery. I'm skeptical about it. Having looked through the facts online, I found out that such patients normally do not live beyond what, 10 years of age? Would this surgery help or would it impend the family? And yes, it is NOT a cure.
It's an ethical issue - by prolonging the life of this disabled child through such an expensive method it would further throw the family into the depths of financial hardship. I know, I know that every parents wants the best for their child, that every life borned deserves a chance to live but at what cost?
Sure, donations can pour in but after the surgery, who's going to foot for the physio, the expensive contraptions like leg braces and the likes? Call me a robot for all i care but i am certain that society will turn a blind eye - once the surgery is successful, that's it. the bucks will stop there. and the family will thus have to bear the financial burdens of such a costly decision.
I know that if I am a parent of that child, I will try my best to prolong my child's life with me...but then, what IF the child will merely lead a longer life of pain? Would it then be considered merciful instead to just live with the child's condition and spend as much time as possible before the inevitable? (As opposed to actively seeking out treatments and the likes to prolong the child's life further?)
One can and will argue that this is like saying end stage cancer patients should not go for chemo, or that hiv/aids patients should not have to have drugs to prolong their lives. How about no? That's unfair - it's like comparing an apple to say an orange.
Urgh, moral ethical dilemma.
Obviously I am ill-equipped and frankly lazy to think further about this issue and look into this further. What is your take though?
Would you donate to this cause or would you like me, step back and choose not to?
