Should there be a ban on pregnancy age ?

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:17 pm

Oldest New Mom Dies, Leaving Twins Behind!

The oldest woman to give birth has died at 69, leaving behind 2-year-old twins, newspapers reported Wednesday.

Skip over this content

The woman's mother had died at 101, so the woman felt she stood a good chance of living long enough to raise her new born children.

Skip over this content

The owner of the clinic, said the woman falsified her birth date on documents, or else they would not have accepted her over the age of 55.

So do fertility clinics have a responsibility over their patients to assure information accuracy? Should/could there be an pregnancy "age" limit set, so as to try to protect the unborn children from becoming orphans?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:23 pm

Would it be restricting personal freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, civil rights?

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:26 pm

You make a good point Cars, but then again, anyone can die at any age. What if there was an identical story but with a mum of 22? Years ago they would rip newborn babies from their unwed mothers arms and put them up for adoption. Today we realise how unbelievably cruel this is to both mother and child. What if this mum had always desperately wanted a child but the technology wasn't available until now? (I don't know, I haven't read her story).

In a case such as this you can only feel desperately sorry for the children and for their family and hope someone is there to love and care for them, until they grow up.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:34 pm

AussiePam;1218081 wrote: Would it be restricting personal freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, civil rights?
That's a tricky subject, considering the happiness of the young children involved that may likely loose their mother! I have mixed feelings on this myself! It's every woman's right to bare chidren if she so desires. But "age" would kinda be a major factor I would think! Especially if she has already had children.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:36 pm

Rapunzel;1218082 wrote: You make a good point Cars, but then again, anyone can die at any age. What if there was an identical story but with a mum of 22? Years ago they would rip newborn babies from their unwed mothers arms and put them up for adoption. Today we realise how unbelievably cruel this is to both mother and child. What if this mum had always desperately wanted a child but the technology wasn't available until now? (I don't know, I haven't read her story).

In a case such as this you can only feel desperately sorry for the children and for their family and hope someone is there to love and care for them, until they grow up.
Your'e right of course, however, the odds are stacked against older folks going before the younger ones.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:50 pm

cars;1218090 wrote: Your'e right of course, however, the odds are stacked against older folks going before the younger ones.

You're probably right statistically but then younger folk tend to feel invincible and so will drive fast without due care and attention, drink, smoke, take drugs, run across the road in traffic, etc. It probably balances out, more or less.

I think she should have considered her babies' needs as well as her own, but then again, I believe everyone should have a fair chance in life (even though life never works out that way) and I don't know her story so cannot really comment without the facts.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:51 pm

Rapunzel;1218082 wrote: You make a good point Cars, but then again, anyone can die at any age. What if there was an identical story but with a mum of 22? Years ago they would rip newborn babies from their unwed mothers arms and put them up for adoption. Today we realise how unbelievably cruel this is to both mother and child. What if this mum had always desperately wanted a child but the technology wasn't available until now? (I don't know, I haven't read her story).

In a case such as this you can only feel desperately sorry for the children and for their family and hope someone is there to love and care for them, until they grow up.

I agree with Rap. You cannot start making laws based on one incident. She isn't the first and won't be the last woman of this age group to give birth. It is unfortunate that she died during pregnancy. In this day and age, we have improved medical facilities that make it quite feasible for women to give birth at ages that they would never have attained a 100 years ago.

On the other side of the coin, if the clinic did not place an age limit for accepting pregnant women, they may have detected a warning of fatality and been able to advise her. Alternatively, she may have received more appropriate care for her age that may have made the difference to her survival.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:01 pm

Pregnant woman, 66, set to be oldest woman to give birth in Britain | UK news | guardian.co.uk

World's Oldest Mom - ABC News

Britain's oldest mother Elizabeth Adeney takes son home - Telegraph

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:02 pm

cars;1218076 wrote: Oldest New Mom Dies, Leaving Twins Behind!

How sad.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:07 pm

OpenMind;1218097 wrote: I agree with Rap. You cannot start making laws based on one incident. She isn't the first and won't be the last woman of this age group to give birth. It is unfortunate that she died during pregnancy. In this day and age, we have improved medical facilities that make it quite feasible for women to give birth at ages that they would never have attained a 100 years ago.

On the other side of the coin, if the clinic did not place an age limit for accepting pregnant women, they may have detected a warning of fatality and been able to advise her. Alternatively, she may have received more appropriate care for her age that may have made the difference to her survival.

She survived the pregnancy. The twins are 2 years old.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:09 pm

Peg;1218106 wrote: She survived the pregnancy. The twins are 2 years old.

Thanks, Peg. I misread the article.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:10 pm

and now they are without a mother..........

69 years old?

gimme a break.

what happiness could that have brought?

kids would have been 23 when she was 90?

if she had of lived that long.........

could she have even managed them growing up?

to me that is just selfish.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:19 pm

How do you ban selfishness? How do you ban stupidity?

Should one ban older fathers too?

Should one legislate to force people to wear seatbelts?

Would people who believe in any government butting out of their personal freedoms, go with any of this?

The right to bare babies... :sneaky:

I'm just being a devil's advocate here. When I'm President of the World, I'll ban stupidity .. in fact I may just ban other people.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:21 pm

AussiePam;1218117 wrote: When I'm President of the World, I'll ban stupidity

Bugger. That's me gone then. :-5

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:26 pm

Rapunzel;1218120 wrote: Bugger. That's me gone then. :-5

And me.:rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:30 pm

No legislation needed, but the fertility clinic should be able to refuse service to anyone ... uness it's in a country where it's gov't run health care, that is.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:42 pm

No.

The question gives me the oogies.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:47 pm

Accountable;1218130 wrote: No legislation needed, but the fertility clinic should be able to refuse service to anyone ... uness it's in a country where it's gov't run health care, that is.

You advocate a clinic being allowed to turn away any pregnant woman on the basis of her age then.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:48 pm

Nomad;1218148 wrote: No.

The question gives me the oogies.

Whats an oogie? How many do you get at once?

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:50 pm

OpenMind;1218153 wrote: You advocate a clinic being allowed to turn away any pregnant woman on the basis of her age then.

It's a fertility clinic. She goes there to get pregnant, she isn't pregnant already. I don't think any clinic would turn away a pregnant woman in need of aid.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:53 pm

Rapunzel;1218156 wrote: It's a fertility clinic. She goes there to get pregnant, she isn't pregnant already. I don't think any clinic would turn away a pregnant woman in need of aid.

Right. I'm really not paying proper attention tonight.:rolleyes:

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:24 pm

OpenMind;1218159 wrote: Right. I'm really not paying proper attention tonight.:rolleyes:

Thats ok.

I'm normally in bed by ten. Right now I'm propping my eyes open to chat when really I should be working. I brought loads of work home to finish this weekend, before the summer hols start. *yawn*

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:35 pm

So a fertility clinic should have rules on this? And if so what rules? Who makes them? Who enforces them? If they are government run - we're back to government rules. If they are private enterprise, they are presumably not charities. They run for profit. Why would they wish to restrict their profit making capacity for any reason?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:48 pm

OpenMind;1218153 wrote: You advocate a clinic being allowed to turn away any pregnant woman on the basis of her age then.
I advocate that anybody stupid enough to sign away their healthcare rights to politicians & bureaucrats abide by those politicians' & bureaucrats' decisions. Hopefully some socialist sytem will start passing such laws before we go down that same road; maybe more of us will realize the implications -- that surrendering responsibility is also surrendering liberty.

eta: BTW, that wasn't the issue. She wasn't pregnant, she went there to become pregnant.

eta again: Sorry, I'm apparently tired. The answer to your question is yes.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:59 pm

But isn't that exactly the point Accountable. That woman, for whatever reasons, chose her freedom warts and all - her sense of liberty, free choice, whatever, free from interference, meant she chose to take the course of action she did.. having government or anyone else restrict her free choice is interfering with her personal liberty. Isn't it? If you argue that she should have been stopped, for the greater good etc.. you're preaching what you consider socialism... aren't you? But you still reckon she should have been stopped..

Again, I'm just devil's advocating. Personally, I reckon she was both stupid and totally irresponsible, selfish etc.. and I'm sad for her kids. Still, those kids exist, and who knows what they will do with the lives they have somehow now got.. they might be wonderful, happy and productive.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:39 pm

AussiePam;1218191 wrote: But isn't that exactly the point Accountable. That woman, for whatever reasons, chose her freedom warts and all - her sense of liberty, free choice, whatever, free from interference, meant she chose to take the course of action she did.. having government or anyone else restrict her free choice is interfering with her personal liberty. Isn't it? If you argue that she should have been stopped, for the greater good etc.. you're preaching what you consider socialism... aren't you? But you still reckon she should have been stopped..

Again, I'm just devil's advocating. Personally, I reckon she was both stupid and totally irresponsible, selfish etc.. and I'm sad for her kids. Still, those kids exist, and who knows what they will do with the lives they have somehow now got.. they might be wonderful, happy and productive.
Finally devil's advocate, it's the "kids", the kids are the ones I feel sorry for! As they inocently were brought into this world by a reckless woman. A woman who lied about her age to the fertility clinic just so she could get pregnent, she told them she was 55. In reality, she was already "66"! It was said had the clinic known her real age, they would have not performed her procedure. Now she's gone, and the kids are motherless, and will be cared for by whom, and at whose expense?!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:03 pm

I thought this thread was about the minimum age to become pregnant.

That would be a clever law to bring in, and solve a lot of problems.

This selfish women is part of the consumer society that is able to buy instant gratification for all their desires and sod the consequences.

Most women with children would think of the age difference when getting broody later in life. This rich chick thought she could buy her dream to bear children without any consideration for the very children she thought would sate her cravings.

Any half decent Doctor with a minimum of moral integrity would decline assisting a women of her age from having children......the blame lies partly with whoever treated her, and the idea you can purchase anything with enough money.

You cannot.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:50 pm

cars;1218252 wrote: Finally devil's advocate, it's the "kids", the kids are the ones I feel sorry for! As they inocently were brought into this world by a reckless woman. A woman who lied about her age to the fertility clinic just so she could get pregnent, she told them she was 55. In reality, she was already "66"! It was said had the clinic known her real age, they would have not performed her procedure. Now she's gone, and the kids are motherless, and will be cared for by whom, and at whose expense?!

Okay, Cars - devil's advocacy aside.

If I was in a position to set the rules for medical ethics with regard to IVF and other fertility programs, I expect I might well be politically incorrect enough to want to restrict this - for the sake of the children born of the procedures - to married women of normal healthy childbearing age, that is under the age of 40.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:19 pm

AussiePam;1218117 wrote: How do you ban selfishness? How do you ban stupidity?

Should one ban older fathers too?

Should one legislate to force people to wear seatbelts?

Would people who believe in any government butting out of their personal freedoms, go with any of this?

The right to bare babies... :sneaky:

I'm just being a devil's advocate here. When I'm President of the World, I'll ban stupidity .. in fact I may just ban other people. My Parents were in their late 40's when they had me. That meant i was relatively young when they both died and i suppose i resented that for a while. My brother became a father for the first time at the age of 50 because his wife could not have children. Strangely, it was a natural conception..... and we like to think of his arrival as more of a miracle and a gift.

There are no guaruntee's in life of how long a parent will live. A new mum could die being hit by a bus at 18 yrs old.

My own personal view on this, is that a mature parent is better equiped at life experience. It matters not of age, as long as the child is wanted and loved. It is very tragic about this mother but at least her babies will grow up and one day learn how hard she worked to get them and how loved they were.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:50 pm

Rapunzel;1218176 wrote: Thats ok.

I'm normally in bed by ten. Right now I'm propping my eyes open to chat when really I should be working. I brought loads of work home to finish this weekend, before the summer hols start. *yawn*

Well I hope you've been to bed since your post here, Rap. I've just risen and I forgot to set my alarm last night so I'm running late.

I'm having a quick coffee to wake myself up.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:52 pm

Accountable;1218190 wrote: I advocate that anybody stupid enough to sign away their healthcare rights to politicians & bureaucrats abide by those politicians' & bureaucrats' decisions. Hopefully some socialist sytem will start passing such laws before we go down that same road; maybe more of us will realize the implications -- that surrendering responsibility is also surrendering liberty.

eta: BTW, that wasn't the issue. She wasn't pregnant, she went there to become pregnant.

eta again: Sorry, I'm apparently tired. The answer to your question is yes.

It's ok Acc. I was having an attention deficiency moment last night. I didn't read the bit that said it was a fertility clinic.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:02 am

Having never been able to have children all my life, I presumed I was firing blanks. Nonetheless, when I turned 50, I consciously decided that I didn't feel I was young enough to have children as it would be unfair on the child. I was very surprised when my daughter was conceived.

While I love my daughter to bits, I still feel it's unfair on her in the long run. I'm very conscious of my age when she's with me. Fortunately, she has a younger mother to take care of her in this instance.

Nonetheless, if I'd known or thought to have a check, I would have taken steps to prevent making a woman pregnant.

On the other hand, my daughter is a blessing. I am very proud of her.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:56 am

OpenMind;1218308 wrote: Having never been able to have children all my life, I presumed I was firing blanks. Nonetheless, when I turned 50, I consciously decided that I didn't feel I was young enough to have children as it would be unfair on the child. I was very surprised when my daughter was conceived.

While I love my daughter to bits, I still feel it's unfair on her in the long run. I'm very conscious of my age when she's with me. Fortunately, she has a younger mother to take care of her in this instance.

Nonetheless, if I'd known or thought to have a check, I would have taken steps to prevent making a woman pregnant.

On the other hand, my daughter is a blessing. I am very proud of her.

Very well said Roger. Big hugs to you and Arabella. :-4:-4:yh_hugs:yh_hugs:-6:-6

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:14 am

AussiePam;1218300 wrote: Okay, Cars - devil's advocacy aside.

If I was in a position to set the rules for medical ethics with regard to IVF and other fertility programs, I expect I might well be politically incorrect enough to want to restrict this - for the sake of the children born of the procedures - to married women of normal healthy childbearing age, that is under the age of 40.
40 is lower then I would set if I set the rules. I agree with the "clinic's" age limit of 55, of course, for a healthy woman. At 55 the mother's "normal" life expectancy can be at least another 20 or more years. Long enough to raise the child. Of course, there are no guarantees on longevity, however, at least statistics make it plausible.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:18 am

Accountable;1218190 wrote: I advocate that anybody stupid enough to sign away their healthcare rights to politicians & bureaucrats abide by those politicians' & bureaucrats' decisions. Hopefully some socialist sytem will start passing such laws before we go down that same road; maybe more of us will realize the implications -- that surrendering responsibility is also surrendering liberty.

eta: BTW, that wasn't the issue. She wasn't pregnant, she went there to become pregnant.

eta again: Sorry, I'm apparently tired. The answer to your question is yes.

Healthcare rights ?

Is that like choices ?

Tell me about all of the choices you have through the plans that were offered to you by your employer.

Then explain how if this new bill passes what the differences will be.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:22 am

OpenMind;1218308 wrote: Having never been able to have children all my life, I presumed I was firing blanks. Nonetheless, when I turned 50, I consciously decided that I didn't feel I was young enough to have children as it would be unfair on the child. I was very surprised when my daughter was conceived.

While I love my daughter to bits, I still feel it's unfair on her in the long run. I'm very conscious of my age when she's with me. Fortunately, she has a younger mother to take care of her in this instance.

Nonetheless, if I'd known or thought to have a check, I would have taken steps to prevent making a woman pregnant.

On the other hand, my daughter is a blessing. I am very proud of her.
Very similar to my brother. As they had been unable to have children for so many years they never dreamt that his wife would concieve naturally. She had even had surgery on her womb twice and was told it was impossible. His little boy is 5 now so if there was a law about pregnancy age, would this very much wanted child have to have been aborted?

Having said that, my brother is very aware of his age and his wife's. It's on their minds that he may only be in his 20's when they pass away. However, my brothers main fear is will he be too old to teach him the finer art of cricket :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:32 am

AussiePam;1218191 wrote: But isn't that exactly the point Accountable. That woman, for whatever reasons, chose her freedom warts and all - her sense of liberty, free choice, whatever, free from interference, meant she chose to take the course of action she did.. having government or anyone else restrict her free choice is interfering with her personal liberty. Isn't it? If you argue that she should have been stopped, for the greater good etc.. you're preaching what you consider socialism... aren't you? But you still reckon she should have been stopped..

Again, I'm just devil's advocating. Personally, I reckon she was both stupid and totally irresponsible, selfish etc.. and I'm sad for her kids. Still, those kids exist, and who knows what they will do with the lives they have somehow now got.. they might be wonderful, happy and productive.
En contraire, Pam, apparently I didn't make myself clear. If she has the funds to pay for it, and can find a doctor/clinic/hospital to do the procedure, then no one should stop her. If the doctor/clinic/hospital refuses service, then that should likewise be allowed without legal or civil consequence.

If, however, the citizens have ceded their medical decisions to the government, both the woman and the doctor/clinic/hospital must abide by goevernment rules whether they agree with them or not - meaning that if the government decides she's too old, she's to old and that's that; or if the givernment decides they pay for such procedures, the doctor/clinic/hospital must do the procedure regardless of objections.

When citizens give over their medical decisions to the government, they also give over their liberty to regarding those decisions. If the national health service says they won't pay for a procedure because a person is too old, we can't have the person say "I don't care, do it anyway" and expect NHS to pay for her "free choice" now can we?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:33 am

There is a hell of a lot of difference between a "happy accident" occurring between a loving couple, and an accessory purchased against any common sense.

She had tricked US doctors into giving her IVF treatment, telling them she was 55..................She insisted her doctors had said her cancer was unrelated to the aggressive hormone treatment she received to reverse the menopause so she could become pregnant

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:40 am

Nomad;1218332 wrote: Healthcare rights ?

Is that like choices ?

Tell me about all of the choices you have through the plans that were offered to you by your employer.

Then explain how if this new bill passes what the differences will be.
The difference is that I can accept or reject the benefits offered by the employer - benefits paid by the employer for services rendered, which can be taken away should I fail to deliver my end of the bargain.

I will not have that option with this new bill. I pay for as long as I have means to pay, whether or not I use, need, or even want the service. Should I need medical care, I have to take what the bureaucracy deems is warranted, regardless of what I want, truly need, or could have afforded had I been allowed to pay my own way.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:41 am

Acct.

benefits thru your Employer are also limited.? right?

and do you need to work a certain amount of hours to qualify for coverage thru your employer?

so, if you don't make the necessary hours - your not covered at all.

sorry about just jumping in..

curious

Patsy

BRUV - everything comes down to MONEY

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:26 pm

Accountable;1218353 wrote: En contraire, Pam, apparently I didn't make myself clear. If she has the funds to pay for it, and can find a doctor/clinic/hospital to do the procedure, then no one should stop her. If the doctor/clinic/hospital refuses service, then that should likewise be allowed without legal or civil consequence.

If, however, the citizens have ceded their medical decisions to the government, both the woman and the doctor/clinic/hospital must abide by goevernment rules whether they agree with them or not - meaning that if the government decides she's too old, she's to old and that's that; or if the givernment decides they pay for such procedures, the doctor/clinic/hospital must do the procedure regardless of objections.

When citizens give over their medical decisions to the government, they also give over their liberty to regarding those decisions. If the national health service says they won't pay for a procedure because a person is too old, we can't have the person say "I don't care, do it anyway" and expect NHS to pay for her "free choice" now can we?

She had to go abroad to a private clinic to get the fertility treatment. Quite rightly the NHS declined to treat her just as they decline to treat people who just want cosmetic surgery for the sake of it. Anyone in the UK has the choice to go and get private medical care of that's what they want. personally if they then come back to the NHS to get their resultant medical problems sorted out I think they should be asked to pay for it. It actually is costing the NHS a lot or money sortin g out the problems caused by private clinics. I would also like to see people who opt for private medical care also being asked to opt out of the NHS and expect to pay for any treatment they receive in NHS hospitals. Bet the sales of private medicine policies would frop.

Why anyone would go privately is beyond me-especially those who go abroad you don't know what kind of quack you will get. How do you know if the doctor is prescribing what you need or just ripping you off?

We also have doctors in the NHS who make decisions about treatment not government officials why on earth do you government makes medical decisions? You have insurance clerks deciding what is a suitable treatment based on cost rather than need. We don't have hospitals asking if you have insurance before admitting you or stopping treatment because the money has run out.

our system is flawed but at least we don't have people being refused treatment because they don't have insurance-nor do we have unnecessary tests carried just so a doctor can earn the extra dollars. We don't have people going bankrupt because of medical bills.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:32 pm

gmc;1218426 wrote: She had to go abroad to a private clinic to get the fertility treatment. Anyone in the UK has the choice to go and get private medical care of that's what they want. personally if they then come back to the NHS to get their resultant medical problems sorted out I think they should be asked to pay for it. It actuallt is costing the NHS a lot or money. I would also like see people who opt for private medical care also being asked to opt out of the NHS and expect to pay for any treatment they receive in NHS hospitals.

Why anyone would go privately is beyond me-especially those who go abroad you don't know what kind of quack you will get. How do you know if the doctor is prescribing what you need or just ripping you off?

We also have doctors in the NHS who make decisions about treatment not government officials why on earth do you government makes medical decisions? You have insurance clerks deciding what is a suitable treatment based on cost rather than need. We don't have hospitals asking if you have insurance before admitting you or stopping treatment because the money has run out.

our system is flawed but at least we don't have people being refused treatment because they don't have insurance-nor do we have unnecessary tests carried just so a doctor can earn the extra dollars. We don't have people going bankrupt because of medical bills.
Very well said Auld Yin.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:23 pm

Patsy Warnick;1218413 wrote: Acct.

benefits thru your Employer are also limited.? right?

and do you need to work a certain amount of hours to qualify for coverage thru your employer?

so, if you don't make the necessary hours - your not covered at all.

sorry about just jumping in..

curious

Patsy

BRUV - everything comes down to MONEY
Of course benefits are limited ... limited to what the employer chooses to provide. I'm afraid you've missed my point. Dependence on an employer's benefits plan is completely voluntary. You can take it or leave it without penalty.That flexibility, that choice, that liberty will not be available to a federal plan. Liberty will not be available in the Land of Liberty. Doesn't that bother you?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:28 pm

gmc;1218426 wrote: She had to go abroad to a private clinic to get the fertility treatment. Quite rightly the NHS declined to treat her just as they decline to treat people who just want cosmetic surgery for the sake of it.Just as your system should run. :yh_clap

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:34 pm

Accountable;1218434 wrote: Of course benefits are limited ... limited to what the employer chooses to provide. I'm afraid you've missed my point. Dependence on an employer's benefits plan is completely voluntary. You can take it or leave it without penalty.That flexibility, that choice, that liberty will not be available to a federal plan. Liberty will not be available in the Land of Liberty. Doesn't that bother you?

Liberty in the Land of Liberty should be for all. I think your argument falters on the rock that all those in your country who are without work, with work but without benefits which cover anything much, with work but without benefits at all, with work but without a living wage from that work are somehow choosing to be like this. Or are such no-hopers that they deserve to be unsuccessful. I think it's come from the old idea of the American Dream. If you work hard, give a tithe of your earnings to God, etc you absolutely will prosper. That may be true for a lucky few, but I wonder how many of your countrymen and countrywomen truly believe that these days.

But we are straying a long way from the OP. Which was really about medical ethics, not health benefits.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:20 pm

Give me any excuse to throw in a plug for the greatest band ever, The Stranglers, and i'll be in there quicker than a Rattus norvegicus shinning up a drainpipe. I have always believe The Stranglers to be prophetic in their music and lyrics. As with much of their music i find this track quite spooky in the fact that it was written and recorded in 1979.

YouTube - The Stranglers - Genetix

'See the little nuclei

Bursting full of information

There's a need to regulate

Bring it down to cells and plasma

Tell you what they're gonna do

Started doing it already

Got to find something new

Looking for it in genetix

Found a new game to play

Think it's impossible to lose

Messing round at playing God

Easy way to play genetix

Gene regulation

"The first law of Segregation

States that any gamete male

Or female can carry the

Determinant gene of only one

Pair of alternative characteristics.

The second law of free assortment

States that in a cross involving

One pair of alternative characteristics,

The characteristics will segregate

In the second filial generation,

In the relative proportions of

9, 3, 3, 1"

The Stranglers.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:24 pm

AussiePam;1218446 wrote: Liberty in the Land of Liberty should be for all. I think your argument falters on the rock that all those in your country who are without work, with work but without benefits which cover anything much, with work but without benefits at all, with work but without a living wage from that work are somehow choosing to be like this. Or are such no-hopers that they deserve to be unsuccessful. I think it's come from the old idea of the American Dream. If you work hard, give a tithe of your earnings to God, etc you absolutely will prosper. That may be true for a lucky few, but I wonder how many of your countrymen and countrywomen truly believe that these days.

But we are straying a long way from the OP. Which was really about medical ethics, not health benefits.
The idea of liberty has been stolen and bastardized to somehow mean that everyone deserves what anyone can conceive, even at the expense of other people's liberty. Dreams, goals, and success are individual and cannot be named for an entire nation.

Medical ethics were well served in the OP scenario. It was the woman with poor ethics, and the children will end up suffering for the sins of the mother.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:29 pm

Bruv;1218265 wrote: This selfish women is part of the consumer society that is able to buy instant gratification for all their desires and sod the consequences.

Most women with children would think of the age difference when getting broody later in life. This rich chick thought she could buy her dream to bear children without any consideration for the very children she thought would sate her cravings.

Bruv;1218354 wrote: There is a hell of a lot of difference between a "happy accident" occurring between a loving couple, and an accessory purchased against any common sense.
I agree wholeheartedly, Bruv.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:35 pm

Accountable;1218457 wrote: I agree wholeheartedly, Bruv. After i read Bruv's post, it got me thinking and i have actually come around to your way of thinking. I suppose the miracle of my brother becoming a father late in life totally unexpected was indeed a gift and meant to be. There is an element here of 'money talks' and i feel for all the childless couples who don't have the means to do what this woman did. IVF is a wonderful miracle in science that gives some couples desperate for a child the one chance they have but i do now agree that there is a limit. I suppose the next step on from this is human cloning.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:12 pm

Accountable;1218361 wrote: The difference is that I can accept or reject the benefits offered by the employer - benefits paid by the employer for services rendered, which can be taken away should I fail to deliver my end of the bargain.

I will not have that option with this new bill. I pay for as long as I have means to pay, whether or not I use, need, or even want the service. Should I need medical care, I have to take what the bureaucracy deems is warranted, regardless of what I want, truly need, or could have afforded had I been allowed to pay my own way.

Forgive me for being unaware of all the details of the new plan. I dont know how you know all the details when theyre still throwing ideas around. My understanding at one point was if you recieved benefits through your employer nothing would change. Hes not trying to put Blue Cross Blue Shield out of business merely filling in the gaps that too many are falling through.

Could you provide some link to the idea you have that we will have no choices and benefits will be dictated to us as well as mandatory ?