even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
You are right, for many Chinese patients, cost is the main reason.
In the U.S., there is such a system. Everyone BA baby can get treatment, either through parents' insurance, or, if poor, government pays.
however, I don't US government is paying for medicine after the transplant. That alone could bankrupt a family. I used to think US government would help in that case. However, recently I learned from some news, this kind of help is not guaranteed, especially at this time of bad economy. A lot of government programs were cut off. A mom was crying for help on FOX.
Transplant is very expensive. Here, unless your life expectency is less than 6 month, otherwise, doctors won't do it. Also, if wait till very late, success rate is cut to half. So it's a waste of resource if not plan well ahead. re
中国儿希 副主席 ） ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you XX! We are so so worried about little Hope’s tomorrow. It looks like she can be operated and live but she will not accepted by her own family due to the result of the surgery. Unfortunately, in China, the parents have the right to stop her treatment even if she can live with surgery. They have not told us so after the new diagnosis but it doesn't look positive. We are working very hard to seek possibilities to continue her treatment at the hospital. We have not asked for any fund due to the urgency of the case, we may come to that point later if she will indeed get surgery with our help. Please check our web for the latest update on her. It’s very very complex due to the families’ attitude before. Please tell the friends on overseas Chinese web, we appreciate your support and we wish we can work hard to save her life and the lives of many little babies like her. It’s our adult’s job to save our children’s lives. Even if it means the child is not ours. Thanks again. Please continue to support this effort. It means a lot to us in China. Happy New year to everyone! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Melody Wen Zhang/MSW Deputy Director Child Welfare League of China China Association of Social Work 1C QuYuan HaoHongYuan No.3 XiBaHe South RD ChaoYang District Beijing China 100028 Tel: 86-10-64462430/1/2/3 Ext. 601 Fax: 86-10-64462430 Ext. 650 Web: www.cwlc.org.cn Email: [email protected]
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities. 这个说的太好了！ 强RＥ．
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities. 我看了大概有10遍了..first group ignore就有10遍了.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you XX! We are so so worried about little Hope’s tomorrow. It looks like she can be operated and live but she will not accepted by her own family due to the result of the surgery. Unfortunately, in China, the parents have the right to stop her treatment even if she can live with surgery. They have not told us so after the new diagnosis but it doesn't look positive. We are working very hard to seek possibilities to continue her treatment at the hospital. We have not asked for any fund due to the urgency of the case, we may come to that point later if she will indeed get surgery with our help. Please check our web for the latest update on her. It’s very very complex due to the families’ attitude before. Please tell the friends on overseas Chinese web, we appreciate your support and we wish we can work hard to save her life and the lives of many little babies like her. It’s our adult’s job to save our children’s lives. Even if it means the child is not ours. Thanks again. Please continue to support this effort. It means a lot to us in China. Happy New year to everyone! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Melody Wen Zhang/MSW Deputy Director Child Welfare League of China China Association of Social Work 1C QuYuan HaoHongYuan No.3 XiBaHe South RD ChaoYang District Beijing China 100028 Tel: 86-10-64462430/1/2/3 Ext. 601 Fax: 86-10-64462430 Ext. 650 Web: www.cwlc.org.cn Email: [email protected] 发件人:XX [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2010年2月11日 12:33 收件人: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 主题: 关于小希望的进展，海外华人网非常关注！请有空解答一下，谢谢！
可能会生不如死..和可能不会生不如死的概率以及各自的consequence要承担的都是他们..有决定权的也是他们..你想杜绝一个slim chance 父母为了怕拖累恶意遗弃让孩子死这个case的心情可以理解..但是这个可能性没有人confirm..结论是不是这样看医生..所以有些人这么早扣这么大的帽子是可鄙的.. 除了最后一句（这个当口这么说，会有争议的） re
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
agreed
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
Your grouping and categorizing is misleading.In the official response from OSCCF, they stated :OSCCF认为，生存权是孩子享有的最基本权利，除非依据相关法律公正判决，任何他人（包括孩子亲生父母）都无权剥夺孩子的生存权。孩子的独立人格和生存权利应该受到尊重和保护。That's different from definition of description of pro-life movement from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_movement if you trust them), which only involves fetus, not babies. In addition, the your statement implies that first group is not pro best interest of an infant (not a fetus) and OSCCF is with the first group. That's is only your opinion and I disagree.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities. 虽然我觉得你又说了一遍吧，为了多宣传
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
agreed
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
Your grouping and categorizing is misleading. In the official response from OSCCF, they stated :OSCCF认为，生存权是孩子享有的最基本权利，除非依据相关法律公正判决，任何他人（包括孩子亲生父母）都无权剥夺孩子的生存权。孩子的独立人格和生存权利应该受到尊重和保护。
That's different from definition of description of pro-life movement from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_movement if you trust them), which only involves fetus, not babies.
In addition, your statement implies OSCCF is not pro best interest of an infant (not a fetus). That's is only your opinion and I disagree.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
Key point: doctors have to agree.
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/11 17:14:33编辑过]
The pro-life I used there is different from pro-life commonly used in US for abortion issues.
For abortion, pro-life means right to live even for fetus. In my statement, pro-life is right to live for infants and kids.
There can be only one priority when pro-life and pro-interest are in conflict. I think it is rather clear in the statement by OSCCF that they believe in and only believe in right to life when this right is in conflict with anything else.
那前面说的家长不同意捐肝就算ignorant就要把孩子夺走，是怎么回事？ Okay, it's just talking to you in a loop. Enjoy your "looping" logic. I've wasted time explaining in previous posts. 88!
There is no official statement from "天津三甲" stating that they recommended to send the baby to hospice. It is equally possible that the "天津三甲" ask the dad to take the baby away because he didn't agree to their treatment recommendation and "天津三甲" didn't want the responsibility (pure hypothetical without any concrete evidence). Regarding "临终关怀医院", based on their statement, they are only contacted by the dad , not the baby's doctor. They might have made a serious mistake to accept the baby unless 临终关怀医院 is authorized to diagnose and offer treatment recommendations. Here is the definition of hospice on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospice).
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
我这么说的意思是：
你这样的方法。一定会造成孩子被当成小白鼠的后果。
比如说权威在医生？什么医生？是乡下小医院的医生？还是三甲医院的教授？？什么级别才可以决定？什么科的医生可以托管？
医生没有权威。医生只能说出判断。权威的。是国家执法机构
而且即使是医生，也有可能在自己的ego和创新的目的下，作出并不利于孩子的预后。
诊断是诊断，预后并不是普适的。
问问他们孩子手术的预后怎么样，需要多少手术，未来生活质量会如何。。。
re，希望看到真正的专业会诊结果，哪怕是转述的，这几天看“我觉得”实在是看腻味了
这种也我认为也就是归为上面那个3 ignanrance吧。
即便这样，旁人也有权利去抢走孩子剥夺家长的监护权么？懂法的来说说
In the U.S., if parents are igornant or neglect, they cannot be the guardian. Court will order kids to be fostered or adopted.
人大和政协。提出提案的同时要附带解决方案。所以我们的讨论，是讨论如何提出提案的同时，附带上合理的解决方案
我就是想和大家讨论解决方案。我是法盲，所以有考虑不周的地方，我接受大家的意见
very御
熊抱！
偶又不得不同意你提出的另一个point了
这件事情纠结成此，就是没有一个固定的法律说法（或者有，我不知道），这个权威在哪里
前几天看到人家说的美国的案例什么的（我不懂美国法律哈），在美国是有这样的有关法律规定这个权威的
不是说美国的月亮比咱圆哈，就是对比对比
是不是最近要会诊就会有权威说法啦?
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians
and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests
standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo
aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
这说得真好。
可圣母们就是选择看不见。
手术结果:
1. 奇迹
孩子手术后跟正常人无异。5岁后，有正常肛门，正常排便，生殖系统正常，泌尿系统正常，心脏正常，这个可能性，看现在儿希会的意思，可能性不高。就算奇迹吧。
最可能发生的是，2，3，4.
2.好
5岁之后，带粪袋子，其他基本正常或者接近正常，正常生活，自己能养活自己。在中国的话（那个国家都一样，带粪袋子XXOO，总有人在乎，有人不在乎），婚姻恋爱肯定受影响，从小因为粪袋受小朋友嘲笑，自卑敏感，如果有慧根(按人群中有慧根正常比例算，可能性小于万分之一），可能象史铁生一样找到灵魂的安慰。
3.中：
5岁之后，带粪袋子，消化，呼吸，心血管系统经常生病，半正常人生活，能念中小学，不能HANDLE紧张学习，上不了大学。婚恋受影响。生活自理，自己不能养活自己。
4.差：
5岁之后，带粪袋子，疾病缠身，消化，呼吸，心血管系统经常生病，经常做消化系统手术。寿命从10几岁倒40几岁不等。看运气和护理。基本不能过正常人生活。
而且即使是医生，也有可能在自己的ego和创新的目的下，作出并不利于孩子的预后。
诊断是诊断，预后并不是普适的。
从法律的角度来说，把一个没有行为能力的人交给他的亲人去做决定，能考虑到他的最大利益的几率总比交给路人来得大些。。。
问题是，是不是事故，还是有相对客观的标准可以参照的，这个你怎么界定几成把握以下可以放弃？怎么界定什么样的生活品质对这个个体病人就是可以接受的，怎样的是生不如死？这些都是非常个人的事情。
医生只可能把最好的可能，最坏的可能，各种可能，各种几率，都告诉病人和监护人，他们的专业的建议，告诉病人，最终的决定权，始终在病人和法定监护人手里，如果医生觉得监护人的决定不合法不道德，可以通过法律渠道要求变更监护人啊。但是要一个机构来决定是不是可以放弃治疗，我觉得不现实。
Re!
电刀……糊糊的……
我最受不了这个产生的糊味
你要不是牙医我都快怀疑你是我一个北医大出来的姐们了..她那话唠的..我分特..
还行吧……你你你，说我话痨~我好伤心
In the U.S., if parents are igornant or neglect, they cannot be the guardian. Court will order kids to be fostered or adopted.
父母如果真的不想捐肝都不行吗？这个ignorant是如何界定的？
You are right, for many Chinese patients, cost is the main reason.
In the U.S., there is such a system. Everyone BA baby can get treatment, either through parents' insurance, or, if poor, government pays.
however, I don't US government is paying for medicine after the transplant. That alone could bankrupt a family. I used to think US government would help in that case. However, recently I learned from some news, this kind of help is not guaranteed, especially at this time of bad economy. A lot of government programs were cut off. A mom was crying for help on FOX.
Transplant is very expensive. Here, unless your life expectency is less than 6 month, otherwise, doctors won't do it. Also, if wait till very late, success rate is cut to half. So it's a waste of resource if not plan well ahead.
re
这种也我认为也就是归为上面那个3 ignanrance吧。
即便这样，旁人也有权利去抢走孩子剥夺家长的监护权么？懂法的来说说
抢走监护权的人，是否必须自己捐部分肝呢？
我这么说的意思是：
你这样的方法。一定会造成孩子被当成小白鼠的后果。
比如说权威在医生？什么医生？是乡下小医院的医生？还是三甲医院的教授？？什么级别才可以决定？什么科的医生可以托管？
医生没有权威。医生只能说出判断。权威的。是国家执法机构
谢谢科普，看来不是那么简单呀
是啊，我读着很费劲。理解不了。
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: 答复: 关于小希望的进展，海外华人网非常关注！请有空解答一下，谢谢！
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:17:54 +0800
翻译部分，我的文法不好，请将就看：
（ 谢谢XX。
我们非常担心小希望的未来。看上去她可以进行手术并活下去，但是由于手术结果（不明？），她可能不会被她自己的家庭接受。不幸的是，在中国，家长有权决定终止手术，即使通过手术她可以存活。 在新的诊断（应该是会诊）后，家长还没有告诉我们他们的决定，只是看上去不很乐观。我们正在努力寻找可能性，来延续她在医院的治疗。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
由于事态紧急，我们还没有开始募捐，如果在我们的帮助下，她最终可以手术了了，我们可能会进行这项活动。在那之前，由于家长的态度，这（原文IT）非常的复杂。请告诉海外俱乐部的网友们，我们感谢你们的支持，我们也希望通过我们的努力可以挽救的了小希望的生命和其他许多像她一样的孩子的生命。 这是我们成年人的责任去挽救孩子的生命--即使孩子不是我们自己的。
再次感谢，请继续支持这件事情，对中国而言都很有意义。
向每个人祝新年快乐。
张雯
中国儿希 副主席 ）
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you XX!
We are so so worried about little Hope’s tomorrow. It looks like she can be operated and live but she will not accepted by her own family due to the result of the surgery. Unfortunately, in China, the parents have the right to stop her treatment even if she can live with surgery. They have not told us so after the new diagnosis but it doesn't look positive. We are working very hard to seek possibilities to continue her treatment at the hospital.
We have not asked for any fund due to the urgency of the case, we may come to that point later if she will indeed get surgery with our help. Please check our web for the latest update on her. It’s very very complex due to the families’ attitude before.
Please tell the friends on overseas Chinese web, we appreciate your support and we wish we can work hard to save her life and the lives of many little babies like her. It’s our adult’s job to save our children’s lives. Even if it means the child is not ours.
Thanks again. Please continue to support this effort. It means a lot to us in China.
Happy New year to everyone!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Wen Zhang/MSW Deputy Director
Child Welfare League of China
China Association of Social Work
1C QuYuan HaoHongYuan
No.3 XiBaHe South RD ChaoYang District
Beijing China 100028
Tel: 86-10-64462430/1/2/3 Ext. 601
Fax: 86-10-64462430 Ext. 650
Web: www.cwlc.org.cn
Email: [email protected]
是不是最近要会诊就会有权威说法啦?
bless小宝宝少受罪
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
这个说的太好了！ 强RＥ．
啥也听不懂
听懂了你晚上就不睡了
问问他们孩子手术的预后怎么样，需要多少手术，未来生活质量会如何。。。
恩，打算晚上给她回信。谢谢建议。
In the U.S., if parents are igornant or neglect, they cannot be the guardian. Court will order kids to be fostered or adopted.
66说也不一定这样啊，到底哪个是法律规定的？
我不厚道的笑~~
我们的尸体就是我们的，不和口腔share的。。。。口腔有自己的。。。
你们尸库有俺们大？俺们号称全亚洲第一大
你这个命题就有点儿可怕。
孩子的治疗方案，什么对孩子最好，是父母/监护人跟医生之间的事。
咱首先讨论一下，人类为什么生育这件事吧。是为了自己，爱啊之类都是为了让人喜欢乐意养育后代的奖励。都是激素作用。（真的，爱心泛滥不是你比别人崇高，而是你某种激素比别人多。）
首先咱得承认人类的自私性。命题才可以开始讨论。
人类自私，人类生育主要是为了自己。
然后才能说人道主义，道德。
父母养育一个残疾孩子，是一件利益受损的事情，你先承认这一点。
然后我们再讨论社会，法律，如何介入。
我同意，而且我也理解有人愿意接受，有人不愿意，都无可厚非。
你可以争取舆论来建立相关保护法律，别人也可以动员舆论反对你的提议。
在有定论之前和之后，圣母随便抢人孩子都是违法的。如果法律建立起来了，有执行权的是都些专制机构，而不是爱心妈妈们。
剥夺了监护权之后呢..这个法律也应该规定..都給慈善组织是不可能的..給社会目前也是不现实的..那给谁..很多穷人家的小孩得了绝症父母也可以放弃治疗出让监护权为孩子争取更好的medical treatment..这个法律出发点是良好的..实施起来对目前的中国社会来说难度很大...无论如何也不是某个人的狗血行为可以解决的..在出台保护孩子的法律之前要加强这种抢孩子严惩的法律...这个是可行的..
刚才出去了，没有太多时间爬楼，我看了一下，可能质疑医生这个批评是因为我一句话引起的，那么我来跟你们讲讲理。没有人想把这个问题引导到质疑医生这个角度上面去。只不过，我把事情看的稍微复杂一点，我不认为医生的医术医德是百分之百可靠，所以，基于这个原因，我愿意去多看看别的医生是怎么分析的，好的坏的都看看。
偏听则信，兼听则明，这比你们死活认定三甲的水平，所以对任何别的医生/案例选择性失明的态度，谁更公允一些呢？更何况，这个医生的论断本身直接关系到小孩子的命运的，谨慎一些不应该吗？
前面也有人说，医生没有看过孩子没有资格发言，我记得当年朱令的事情里面，一个海外的医生在internet上面看到她同学的求救信来诊断出铊中毒吧？这个医生是否过于草率？一个疑难杂症，不可能要求所有的医生都要过目才可以参加讨论吧，有的医生愿意真诚地share experience，我觉得是好事情。
谢谢您给讲道理
死活认定三甲的水平。
这个结论从哪儿退出来的？我说了三甲就对，是真理啦？还死活认定。
还有就是，看病，现在听三甲的意见， 要认定谁，中国最高级别的就是三甲了吧？ 请问您如果在国内看病要去哪儿。 那在美国看病要去哪儿？不去这个三甲，别家还是三甲，你让我认定谁的水平去？
为啥就觉得人家家长没有去咨询别的医生呢？你这个对于家属的结论怎么退出来的？
对任何别的医生/案例选择性失明的态度？
这个请指出我哪儿来的这个态度。 另外，我想问，还有哪个医生给了意见？除了那个没有见过病人面，没有看过检查报告的加州医生。 至于案例，没有选择失明，只是说，那些只是单一病种，这个孩子复合了多系统疾病，更加复杂，不能只是简单的说分开说不难治。艾滋病人感冒还能死呢，感冒不也好治么。
不是有一句话是牵一发而动全身么。 这个您同意么？ 或者形象点，几个骨牌，隔的很远，推一个，别的没事，如果离得很近，是不是推了一个别的也要倒呢？
至于有医生愿意真诚地share experience，我觉得是好事情。
这个我们在某种程度上是一致的，但是，一个没有看过任何检查结果，对于如此复杂病例给出的意见，你可以让我持不那么肯定的态度么？可以么？我没有选择醒失明，我看啦。
而且，我们欢迎给出有价值的治疗方案，而不是说好治，恩，现在已经耽误了最佳的时机。 我去看了朱令的案例，不同的是，求助的人给出了临床症状等非常细节的资料，而不是最后诊断的病名。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/11 17:14:11编辑过]
惊喜的说，我终于看懂了。
PATATOJUICE的错别字严重影响理解意思。啥昨晚那？做完。嘿嘿。
pia开
在美国也没有医生权威到可以接管孩子父母放弃治疗的孩子
要接受。有争议。都是court order.
医生也是人，也有好人坏人。也会受个人情绪影响
我就是想问国内也是这样的吗？
re，昨天谁引的天涯某医生一段话说的就很好
因为他没做过医生
真设身处地，绝对不会轻易说出来：做啊，为啥不做啊！
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
我看了大概有10遍了..first group ignore就有10遍了.
刚才出去了，没有太多时间爬楼，我看了一下，可能质疑医生这个批评是因为我一句话引起的，那么我来跟你们讲讲理。没有人想把这个问题引导到质疑医生这个角度上面去。只不过，我把事情看的稍微复杂一点，我不认为医生的医术医德是百分之百可靠，所以，基于这个原因，我愿意去多看看别的医生是怎么分析的，好的坏的都看看。 偏听则信，兼听则明，这比你们死活认定三甲的水平，所以对任何别的医生/案例选择性失明的态度，谁更公允一些呢？更何况，这个医生的论断本身直接关系到小孩子的命运的，谨慎一些不应该吗？ 前面也有人说，医生没有看过孩子没有资格发言，我记得当年朱令的事情里面，一个海外的医生在internet上面看到她同学的求救信来诊断出铊中毒吧？这个医生是否过于草率？一个疑难杂症，不可能要求所有的医生都要过目才可以参加讨论吧，有的医生愿意真诚地share experience，我觉得是好事情。
所以我觉得这应该是一个board而不应该通过几个医生在远程还是非正式下通过只言片语解释的
PS；我一直想不起来这个名字，总想查，谢谢你！朱玲啊
我同意，而且我也理解有人愿意接受，有人不愿意，都无可厚非。
我觉得父母应该接受一个残疾孩子，但是如果残疾孩子存活的时候孩子要经历很多痛苦（肉体痛苦），而且寿命短，生活质量非常低，这个就不是父母利益的问题了，也是这个孩子的利益问题。当然了这点上prolife就有很大的争执，没有定论。
所以我觉得父母的决定不是单纯从父母利益考虑，如果单从父母利益考虑就是有点儿自私了。
这要很有力气么？小时候菜市场卖青蛙的一天腰斩多少只呢
用锥子？
Many people actual want to get on trial list. Any hope is better than hopeless.
这个有点绝对
儿童保护法有缺陷。
我们可以力争人大代表政协委员提出提案并且附带可行解决方案。
但不是替天行道。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
如果不是这次事件闹大，你会想到力争完善儿童保护法吗？
其实现在，肯定有很多相似的事在发生，不曝光，能有多少人知道。
现在你有这个想法，很多人都会有类似的想法，这必然会推动国内儿童保护的重视。
这是我希望看到的。
我有最新(12号)的儿希答复，贴出来请大家参考：信士英文的，我就不翻译了，并隐去了我的姓名.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: 答复: 关于小希望的进展，海外华人网非常关注！请有空解答一下，谢谢！
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:17:54 +0800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you XX!
We are so so worried about little Hope’s tomorrow. It looks like she can be operated and live but she will not accepted by her own family due to the result of the surgery. Unfortunately, in China, the parents have the right to stop her treatment even if she can live with surgery. They have not told us so after the new diagnosis but it doesn't look positive. We are working very hard to seek possibilities to continue her treatment at the hospital.
We have not asked for any fund due to the urgency of the case, we may come to that point later if she will indeed get surgery with our help. Please check our web for the latest update on her. It’s very very complex due to the families’ attitude before.
Please tell the friends on overseas Chinese web, we appreciate your support and we wish we can work hard to save her life and the lives of many little babies like her. It’s our adult’s job to save our children’s lives. Even if it means the child is not ours.
Thanks again. Please continue to support this effort. It means a lot to us in China.
Happy New year to everyone!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Wen Zhang/MSW Deputy Director
Child Welfare League of China
China Association of Social Work
1C QuYuan HaoHongYuan
No.3 XiBaHe South RD ChaoYang District
Beijing China 100028
Tel: 86-10-64462430/1/2/3 Ext. 601
Fax: 86-10-64462430 Ext. 650
Web: www.cwlc.org.cn
Email: [email protected]
发件人:XX [mailto:[email protected]]
发送时间: 2010年2月11日 12:33
收件人: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
主题: 关于小希望的进展，海外华人网非常关注！请有空解答一下，谢谢！
张女士，您好！
我是北美华人网的注册网友，目前在美国求学。
华人网就小希望的事情展开了激烈的争论，关注的人无数。大家虽然观点不同，但是都希望能了解到她的最新进展，希望有机会为她出点力。因此我才冒昧的给您写信，不知道您是否方便透露下她目前的状况呢？是否还有治疗的可能性？家长愿意配合治疗么？如有愿意捐助的网友，能否通过什么途径进行善举？我想孩子的父母亲肯定不方便出面。但是可否以孩子的名义建立一个账号进行募捐呢？只要账目公开透明，我想这件在社会上被炒得沸沸扬扬的事情可以得到转折。
我的真实姓名是XX，也是一个孩子的母亲，因此非常能够体会孩子家人的焦急和痛苦，也很希望有机会为可爱的宝宝尽点微薄的爱心。
有机会请把北美华人网友的祝福带给孩子家属，请他们相信更多的人和他们站在一起，守护着孩子生存的希望！请他们一定要保重，坚强！
祝好！
XX
2010-2-10于美国
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/11 16:43:47编辑过]
唉，我希望父母能够让医院治疗，但是我理解他们的痛苦！bless bless bless
你们尸库有俺们大？俺们号称全亚洲第一大
那你们咋那么惨？
还有比这个的。。。
用锥子？
可能会生不如死..和可能不会生不如死的概率以及各自的consequence要承担的都是他们..有决定权的也是他们..你想杜绝一个slim chance 父母为了怕拖累恶意遗弃让孩子死这个case的心情可以理解..但是这个可能性没有人confirm..结论是不是这样看医生..所以有些人这么早扣这么大的帽子是可鄙的..
除了最后一句（这个当口这么说，会有争议的）
re
抢走监护权的人，是否必须自己捐部分肝呢？
哈哈 同意
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines,
basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
agreed
There
are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group
is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is
with the first group.
Your grouping and categorizing is misleading.In the official response from OSCCF, they stated :OSCCF认为，生存权是孩子享有的最基本权利，除非依据相关法律公正判决，任何他人（包括孩子亲生父母）都无权剥夺孩子的生存权。孩子的独立人格和生存权利应该受到尊重和保护。That's different from definition of description of pro-life movement from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_movement if you trust them), which only involves fetus, not babies. In addition, the your statement implies that first group is not pro best interest of an infant (not a fetus) and OSCCF is with the first group. That's is only your opinion and I disagree.
AS someone in the second group, I
basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which
recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians
and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests
standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo
aggressive
life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less
suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by
hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant,
you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
Key point: doctors have to agree.
医生没同意么？天津三甲同意她转院，临终关怀医院同意接受（这个也是医院，也有医生吧？）
用锥子？
是说生理实验？用锥子锥瘫癞蛤蟆？
捐肝的时候人可以死在台子上，不是脱双鞋那么简单。比如我自己，如果我有病，我不太倾向让我爸妈捐，他们两个都不是完全特别健康的人。
而且，术后也可以发生感染，等等等等。作为家长，还有家长要赡养，不能不说手术风险是很多人犹疑的一个原因。
我就想知道，美国这里是强制捐肝的吗？我不大能理解这个啊
我不会去辱骂家长， 但我有不赞同/鄙视家长的权利， 如果经济富裕， 自己身体健康的前提下，捐肝， 对家长没有很多损失， 对孩子确实80%的希望。
捐肝的时候人可以死在台子上，不是脱双鞋那么简单。比如我自己，如果我有病，我不太倾向让我爸妈捐，他们两个都不是完全特别健康的人。
而且，术后也可以发生感染，等等等等。作为家长，还有家长要赡养，不能不说手术风险是很多人犹疑的一个原因。
同意，我同意小希望这个例子不算在我们讨论范围之类，我同意如果是我，也不忍心让宝宝做那么多手术。我只想讨论，我们国家可以要求法院剥夺父母监护权如果很明显父母不愿治疗可能残疾的宝宝吗。当然，至于法院怎么判，那是法院，医院等相关部门的决定。如果说现在我们国家就没有剥夺父母监护权这项法律，我们要不要争取舆论建立相关保护法律呢？
光是事实判定家长故意，就够喝一壶得了
我就想知道，美国这里是强制捐肝的吗？我不大能理解这个啊
不可能吧，连给娃付学费都不强制的。。。
剥夺了监护权之后呢..这个法律也应该规定..都給慈善组织是不可能的..給社会目前也是不现实的..那给谁..很多穷人家的小孩得了绝症父母也可以放弃治疗出让监护权为孩子争取更好的medical treatment..这个法律出发点是良好的..实施起来对目前的中国社会来说难度很大...无论如何也不是某个人的狗血行为可以解决的..在出台保护孩子的法律之前要加强这种抢孩子严惩的法律...这个是可行的..
是啊，爱心可能会被不法之徒滥用啊~
不是前阵子南方周末登了，某医院招募来了艾滋病人，做某没有上市的新药人体试验，本来就已经很虚弱了，抽血一点都不手软，而且越治越差 。好像这个要在中国就没有通过临床试验的。 就是一公司，给了医院一笔钱。 现在中国已经是最大的新药人体试验厂了，很残酷。
我就想知道，美国这里是强制捐肝的吗？我不大能理解这个啊
不可能吧，
你这个命题就有点儿可怕。
孩子的治疗方案，什么对孩子最好，是父母/监护人跟医生之间的事。
咱首先讨论一下，人类为什么生育这件事吧。是为了自己，爱啊之类都是为了让人喜欢乐意养育后代的奖励。都是激素作用。（真的，爱心泛滥不是你比别人崇高，而是你某种激素比别人多。）
首先咱得承认人类的自私性。命题才可以开始讨论。
人类自私，人类生育主要是为了自己。
然后才能说人道主义，道德。
父母养育一个残疾孩子，是一件利益受损的事情，你先承认这一点。
然后我们再讨论社会，法律，如何介入。
先是自己，然后是道德，然后是法律？
是这样的吗？
如果是这样，这么多人为啥在骂水妖？ 。。。
本帖禁止用高深逻辑..ok?
那你摸摸我
不可能吧，连给娃付学费都不强制的。。。
那前面说的家长不同意捐肝就算ignorant就要把孩子夺走，是怎么回事？
除了最后一句（这个当口这么说，会有争议的）
re
好吧...我坚决不提assumption和fact是有差别的..
捐肝的时候人可以死在台子上，不是脱双鞋那么简单。比如我自己，如果我有病，我不太倾向让我爸妈捐，他们两个都不是完全特别健康的人。
而且，术后也可以发生感染，等等等等。作为家长，还有家长要赡养，不能不说手术风险是很多人犹疑的一个原因。
是不是很容易有并发症？
我亲眼看到那只没打准的兔子仓皇逃窜后被追回来打了静脉针..几年的生物课我都忘了的差不多了..哪个兔子的背影在脑海里几十年挥之不去..
其实很多时候人在乎了就，也就完了把
有的时候难说，在乎到底是成全了一个医生，还是毁了一个医生
我同意，而且我也理解有人愿意接受，有人不愿意，都无可厚非。
以下是引用白面包在2/11/2010 5:12:00 PM的发言：
我觉得父母应该接受一个残疾孩子，但是如果残疾孩子存活的时候孩子要经历很多痛苦（肉体痛苦），而且寿命短，生活质量非常低，这个就不是父母利益的问题了，也是这个孩子的利益问题。当然了这点上prolife就有很大的争执，没有定论。
所以我觉得父母的决定不是单纯从父母利益考虑，如果单从父母利益考虑就是有点儿自私了。
我说的意思是，我们先得承认，养育一个残疾还孩子，父母利益受损。
然后我们知道，人性自私，肯定有人不愿意养。
那么我们的道德标准是，你既然选择生育，就应该接受这个孩子。
再考虑的就是如何介入这个父母和医生做的共同选择，达到我们能接受的最低道德标准。
同时还要给养残疾孩子的家庭帮助。使他们也老有所养，残疾孩子也老有所养。
-----------------------------------------------------
你得接受不是每个人都是圣母，为了几万块都有人杀人放火，然后你再想办法。不能说看见有人不爱养，你就发一回疯。
那前面说的家长不同意捐肝就算ignorant就要把孩子夺走，是怎么回事？
我不认为是真的。。。
是啊，爱心可能会被不法之徒滥用啊~
不是前阵子南方周末登了，某医院招募来了艾滋病人，做某没有上市的新药人体试验，本来就已经很虚弱了，抽血一点都不手软，而且越治越差 。好像这个要在中国就没有通过临床试验的。 就是一公司，给了医院一笔钱。 现在中国已经是最大的新药人体试验厂了，很残酷。
确实是这样的，因为在美国，把一个clinical trial跑完需要花很多钱，还有很多不幸夭折的，成本实在是很高的，在中国做便宜不少。
我不认为是真的。。。
那那些人怎么说得这么言之灼灼
所以我觉得这应该是一个board而不应该通过几个医生在远程还是非正式下通过只言片语解释的
PS；我一直想不起来这个名字，总想查，谢谢你！朱玲啊
这个我同意你的观点，只是看到前面非得把我对医生的一点点质疑扩大为是转移火力攻击医院和医生，结果引发一堆很无聊的争执，很无奈，所以解释一下我的质疑目的是为何，其实就是为了提醒注意听听别的声音而已。算了，网络还不是讲理的地方。
先是自己，然后是道德，然后是法律？
是这样的吗？
如果是这样，这么多人为啥在骂水妖？ 。。。
因为她自己无知,缺乏尊重父母的起码道德观念并罔顾法律...骂她都便宜她了.
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
虽然我觉得你又说了一遍吧，为了多宣传
可是我强re啊！
先是自己，然后是道德，然后是法律？
是这样的吗？
如果是这样，这么多人为啥在骂水妖？ 。。。
她违法啊，。。。。
那前面说的家长不同意捐肝就算ignorant就要把孩子夺走，是怎么回事？
志愿者要捐肝..谁也不许拦着
那你摸摸我
圣母!来摸她..看她还敢用逻辑!
以下是引用bunnymonkey在2/11/2010 4:56:00 PM的发言：
我不会去辱骂家长， 但我有不赞同/鄙视家长的权利， 如果经济富裕， 自己身体健康的前提下，捐肝， 对家长没有很多损失， 对孩子确实80%的希望。 这个。。。。请想想在说出来。 捐肝，会死在手术台上的。 你看到成功的百分比，还有死了的做分母呢。 个体差异不同，也不能要求别人怎么样吧。
我觉得有，但是实施难度就是怎么判定是故意放着等死。这个尤其到了法庭，很难说的。
这个物理证据不比贪污受贿好找。
如果有，那我们应该大为宣传，这样如果有类似事情发生，我们就不要去抢孩子，而是一边和家长协商，一边让法院来裁定。法庭应该有一个快速的解决流程。当然我知道这个也是说起来容易做起来难。
我就想知道，美国这里是强制捐肝的吗？我不大能理解这个啊
No, all voluntary.
以下是引用bunnymonkey在2/11/2010 4:56:00 PM的发言：
我不会去辱骂家长， 但我有不赞同/鄙视家长的权利， 如果经济富裕， 自己身体健康的前提下，捐肝， 对家长没有很多损失， 对孩子确实80%的希望。 这个。。。。请想想在说出来。 捐肝，会死在手术台上的。 你看到成功的百分比，还有死了的做分母呢。 个体差异不同，也不能要求别人怎么样吧。
是啊，如果换成捐血，有几个父母会不捐？随便想想，把肚子剖开，拿出肝出来，会对捐献者没有很多损失？
确实是这样的，因为在美国，把一个clinical trial跑完需要花很多钱，还有很多不幸夭折的，成本实在是很高的，在中国做便宜不少。
被剥夺监护权有试验价值的baby也有slim chance end up在这....
确实是这样的，因为在美国，把一个clinical trial跑完需要花很多钱，还有很多不幸夭折的，成本实在是很高的，在中国做便宜不少。
问题是有的药还不一定能上临床试验呢，就在中国人身上试了，死了也没几个钱。。。惨
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines,
basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
agreed
There
are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group
is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is
with the first group.
Your grouping and categorizing is misleading.
In the official response from OSCCF, they stated :OSCCF认为，生存权是孩子享有的最基本权利，除非依据相关法律公正判决，任何他人（包括孩子亲生父母）都无权剥夺孩子的生存权。孩子的独立人格和生存权利应该受到尊重和保护。
That's different from definition of description of pro-life movement from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_movement if you trust them), which only involves fetus, not babies.
In addition, your statement implies OSCCF is not pro best interest of an infant (not a fetus). That's is only your opinion and I disagree.
AS someone in the second group, I
basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which
recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians
and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests
standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo
aggressive
life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less
suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by
hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant,
you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
Key point: doctors have to agree.
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/11 17:14:33编辑过]
The pro-life I used there is different from pro-life commonly used in US for abortion issues.
For abortion, pro-life means right to live even for fetus. In my statement, pro-life is right to live for infants and kids.
There can be only one priority when pro-life and pro-interest are in conflict. I think it is rather clear in the statement by OSCCF that they believe in and only believe in right to life when this right is in conflict with anything else.
那那些人怎么说得这么言之灼灼
这跟宗教满像的..bible不要问只要信...
可能会生不如死..和可能不会生不如死的概率以及各自的consequence要承担的都是他们..有决定权的也是他们..你想杜绝一个slim chance 父母为了怕拖累恶意遗弃让孩子死这个case的心情可以理解..但是这个可能性没有人confirm..结论是不是这样看医生..所以有些人这么早扣这么大的帽子是可鄙的..
我不知道水妖有没有给父母扣这个大帽子，我同意扣这个大帽子的网友不应该。我也觉得把水妖说成妖魔也不应该。
那前面说的家长不同意捐肝就算ignorant就要把孩子夺走，是怎么回事？
Okay, it's just talking to you in a loop. Enjoy your "looping" logic. I've wasted time explaining in previous posts. 88!
No, all voluntary.
而且我记得器官移植这种，对于活体捐献的供者和受者之间的亲属关系界定很严，不是随便想捐的人都可以，大概是为了杜绝买卖。。。
我不知道水妖有没有给父母扣这个大帽子，我同意扣这个大帽子的网友不应该。我也觉得把水妖说成妖魔也不应该。
呵呵，呵呵
水妖他们为啥不和孩子的父母协商呢，上来就抢，想不通
据水妖博客，她一看到天涯的帖子，就激动了，就去抢了
我不知道水妖有没有给父母扣这个大帽子，我同意扣这个大帽子的网友不应该。我也觉得把水妖说成妖魔也不应该。
你别说，看到个妖字我特别怕别人把我的id给联想出来。。。。
Okay, it's just talking to you in a loop. Enjoy your "looping" logic. I've wasted time explaining in previous posts. 88!
都没解释过怎么叫in a loop……
如果有，那我们应该大为宣传，这样如果有类似事情发生，我们就不要去抢孩子，而是一边和家长协商，一边让法院来裁定。法庭应该有一个快速的解决流程。当然我知道这个也是说起来容易做起来难。
水妖他们为啥不和孩子的父母协商呢，上来就抢，想不通
以下是引用pigling在2/11/2010 5:19:00 PM的发言：
先是自己，然后是道德，然后是法律？
是这样的吗？
如果是这样，这么多人为啥在骂水妖？ 。。。
她违法啊，。。。。
那如果家人为了自己的利益，想放弃能救活，但是残疾的孩子，是不是违法？
医生没同意么？天津三甲同意她转院，临终关怀医院同意接受（这个也是医院，也有医生吧？）
There is no official statement from "天津三甲" stating that they recommended to send the baby to hospice. It is equally possible that the "天津三甲" ask the dad to take the baby away because he didn't agree to their treatment recommendation and "天津三甲" didn't want the responsibility (pure hypothetical without any concrete evidence). Regarding "临终关怀医院", based on their statement, they are only contacted by the dad , not the baby's doctor. They might have made a serious mistake to accept the baby unless 临终关怀医院 is authorized to diagnose and offer treatment recommendations. Here is the definition of hospice on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospice).
这些都是你的猜测吧？咱能不能少来点儿侦探小说？现在的事实就是这边医生签字她出院了，那边医生签字她被接收了
even in US, 父母故意让宝宝等死 may not be illegal under certain guidelines, basically serving an infant's best interest of less suffering.
There are two groups of mms here. One group is absolute pro-life. One group is pro best interest of an infant. I am with the second group. OSCCF is with the first group.
AS someone in the second group, I basically agree with American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines, which recommend "individualized decision-making by clinicians
and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests
standard." If doctors agree it is in a baby's best interest, parents could "forgo
aggressive life-sustaining treatments" to give the baby comfort care and less suffering. Of course, any third party, if you think a decision by hospital and parents is not based on the best interest of an infant, you bring it in front of a judge or other authorities.
谢谢mm科普
虽然我觉得你又说了一遍吧，为了多宣传
可是我强re啊！
I look stupid ...
我不知道水妖有没有给父母扣这个大帽子，我同意扣这个大帽子的网友不应该。我也觉得把水妖说成妖魔也不应该。
我觉得她是妖孽..但不base在是否扣帽子上...base在她绑架和wrong treatmetn这个known fact上...
先是自己，然后是道德，然后是法律？
是这样的吗？
如果是这样，这么多人为啥在骂水妖？ 。。。
这里的自己生的是自己的孩子
这孩子又不是水妖的，不该骂么
水妖他们为啥不和孩子的父母协商呢，上来就抢，想不通
有协商，协商很久，父亲不同意治疗，坚持让孩子安静的离开世界。（这么说可能比等死能接受一点）
以下是引用pigling在2/11/2010 5:19:00 PM的发言：
先是自己，然后是道德，然后是法律？
是这样的吗？
如果是这样，这么多人为啥在骂水妖？ 。。。
她违法啊，。。。。
那如果家人为了自己的利益，想放弃能救活，但是残疾的孩子，是不是违法？
有协商，协商很久，父亲不同意治疗，坚持让孩子安静的离开世界。（这么说可能比等死能接受一点）
怎么我看说本来人家孩子爸爸已经同意第二天一起去找专家了，结果头天晚上被疯婆子抢走了？
除了抢以外，我对她直接哺乳很愤怒，谁知道她有没有带病毒带菌，我是不是很偏执，大事不看，抓小的？
对这样的重病的孩子，退一万步说，喂母乳是对的，也不能在没有任何专业医疗建议下擅自就喂，偶觉得。。。。
故意不治疗还差不多能和gnorance划等号
有协商，协商很久，父亲不同意治疗，坚持让孩子安静的离开世界。（这么说可能比等死能接受一点）
协商的不是水妖，一上来就抢的是她
it is not just 法律的不完善. Few people follows law.
我不是这个意思。我是说法律永远不可能完善的。但是现在是什么法律就按什么法律来行事，至于以后完善了，那是后话了。我也同意不能宣传水妖得做法，会给坏人可乘之机，（虽然我觉得她没有犯法，请参考我325楼的发言）。但是发现了法律不完善，就要积极修正，不断完善。
冰冷的手术台，就这一个，我见过好多家长直接撤了。心疼，很关键。出不来，也很关键。好多人不舍得选。
这没法选啊，太那什么了。
美国不也有么
总有人觉得不好的，总有人挑出来的，总有人要在事后承担一切的
完了之后承担了吗？
除了抢以外，我对她直接哺乳很愤怒，谁知道她有没有带病毒带菌，我是不是很偏执，大事不看，抓小的？
哺乳这一个，简直就是间接谋杀，相当于给糖尿病人吃糖一样。