Yeah, this story has had me dropping my jaw with incredulity and reaching for the razor blades with depression at the sheer crassness of the coverage and worse, the astonishingly ill-advised comments. Radio Five Live is having its phone-in on the subject and I've had to tune away to another station. As has been pointed out, the medical authorities were quite properly concerned to ensure that a decision made by a 13 year old was the correct one, and that - as a 13 year old, she was properly aware of the consequences of her decision for her and for her family.

They clearly though that a heart transplant was a very worthwhile option, and while I'm obviously no medical expert I'm inclined to think that, at age 13, they were probably right - if the operation were successful (and such transplants very often are nowadays), she could have looked forward to a relatively long and heathy life, albeit at the price of some medical problems and uncomfortable surgical procedures. If they thought it was worth a shot, they did indeed have a duty to make sure that the girl had considered things properly before rejecting it - but crucially, her right to reject the transplant was never in question.

Disgusting.

This one suprised me actually, i was expecting the Mail to take the usual anti-euthanasia stand (which in this case would be faily logical) however it seems when it comes to bashing the NHS the following applies:

euthanasia of the 13 year old < NHS

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'

Every time a pulic service does something the Mail doesn't like, the readership want it disbanded. If they had their way there'd be virtually no state structure at all, then who's moaning about the lawlessness and anarchy? Muppets.

That was what surprised me, I've seen loads of Mail readers who seem anti-euthanasia even when we're talking about older people in persistent vegetative states who can't move or speak, and yet here we have a young girl who seemingly has a reasonable chance of living a pretty much normal life if she has a heart transplant, and they're all supporting her decision to die. If she'd been a bit older I might have expected this reaction, but I thought her age would make the readers conclude that she's not really old enough to decide for herself. But I guess their opposition to the 'nanny state' wins out.

Maybe the Mail readers see a distinction between this girl- who is refusing any further treatment- and other cases where people have actually sought out someone who would kill them with a lethal injection?

Don't expect consistency - the Daily Mail commentator is fiercely reactionary in the worst sense - anything that happens is wrong, wrong, wrong. The paper could publish an article tomorrow saying "Gordon Brown brings sunshine, rainbow, lollipops and free money for all" and some of them would moan about "NuLiebour selling us down the river".

I knew this story would bring out contrasting views.



We are indeed.



Twat. And I've given you a negative rating, so there.

theyre at it again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... shoot.html

their response - bring back matrons.



funny they never left, they just dont dress like theyre in carry on movies any more



No the wait in a&e wasnt either. It was a viral infection that his gp was treating him for.

Ah, that's the classic 'Person/people who are connected to a Bad Thing should never have fun again' story. See all those 'Look at Jonathan Ross ENJOYING himself while suspended', or the old 'Here's a picture of Maxine Carr apparently NOT CRYING in a prison garden' stories. I like how it has to admit that the two things are completely unrelated but still maintains a sense of vague rage. And of course we know nothing about the circumstances of the guy's illness. I just read a previous story about him and it says this:



So he'd already been ill for at least six days, suggesting that maybe these few hours wouldn't have made much difference. The much-trumpeted 'six hours' is more like five and a half:



...and he was assessed after three of those hours. There's so much we don't know. Would seeing him immediately have given him ANY chance at all? What other high-priority cases were there that night? The hospital, and the guy's wife, say there were lots of other people there, so maybe they did all they could. The only quotes we get, apart from a single line from the hospital saying there were busy, all come from the guy's understandably distraught wife, but that's not a good basis for a balanced story.

Hang on, this IS the Daily Mail........

Dying patients are denied drugs but the obese get £425 from the NHS to diet

Ignoring the savings later on, clearly. The really amusing thing is this is opposed by Anne Widdicombe, presumably thiking the best way to lose weight is to go on reality TV and be ritually humiliated in front of millions every week?



Roger from brighton resists the urge to have a go at Gordon Brown for once



Simplistic view that, Lucy.

And now a sad indictment of Mail readers. This comment...



...has a lower score than this one...



...oh, and this one...





All fat people = lowlife Labour fans. FACT.

Except she wouldn't be allowed to get on a plane, as she was having a fucking heart attack. And I like his certainty that Obama will wreck the US healthcare system (which is messed up in a different way) - the guy hasn't even been inaugurated yet!!

US, excellent health care system?

BWAHAHAHA!


Hahaha!

Oh, that is so fucking rich!

The headline doesn't say whether they get it every month, every year, whether its handed to them in cash or whether its just the average cost of the NHS treatment program.

Also, don't fat people pay tax themselves? Why shouldn't they be able to use the service they pay for?

The whole thing about NICE is unrelated, new drugs cost a hell of a lot of money (because they cost a hell of a lot to develop), its not simply a case of 'we can't give you this new treatment, tough'.



Thats a new one!

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'

It is, rather. Somewhat unique in that it bears no resemblence to the name of the people it's referring to.