Tragic story

[d000hg]

Why? It's sad I know, but she's not your child.

Effing hell, that's probably the most revolting thing I've seen written on this board. Shame on you.

I see his point though. What is so special about one young child that they deserve everyone scraping together £1m for something that might not help? Not to say it's not horrific, but sadly that's hardly rare.

Firstly, the same money could definitely save hundreds or thousands of equally young and equally cute childrens' lives.

Secondly, isn't there something wrong it costs so much - shouldn't the surgeons/whoever be volunteering to work pro bono rather than tell us how sad it is, and take a big fat salary?

[pzz76077]

I see his point though. What is so special about one young child that they deserve everyone scraping together £1m for something that might not help? Not to say it's not horrific, but sadly that's hardly rare.

Firstly, the same money could definitely save hundreds or thousands of equally young and equally cute childrens' lives.

Secondly, isn't there something wrong it costs so much - shouldn't the surgeons/whoever be volunteering to work pro bono rather than tell us how sad it is, and take a big fat salary?

Would agree, I thought that the NHS was free, why do they (this poor child??) need all this money??
Where does the money go if (when??) she dies??

All questions I would want answered before my heart got in the way of my brain.

PZZ

[Zippy]

All question I would want answered before my heart got in the way of my brain.

PZZ

Damn. My heart gets first dibs then my brain follows.
I see all points though - sad though that is. There is no need to be rude to each other.

[mudskipper]

Come on children. Play nicely.

I don't think anyone would argue that this is not a good cause, or think anyone who feels moved to donate money shouldn't.

I think the question (if rather crassly put!) was why THIS poor wee girl, would move you to donate that money as opposed to any of the other million good causes out there.

Although the point of African Aids sufferers being "more deserving" is arguable. Robyn's situation is tragic and just because she is white, middle class doesn't mean she is less deserving, although it is true that £300,000 could help this one little girl or thousands. Are we saying we should only help people for whom help is the cheapest?

And I don't think there is any problem in donating to what we relate to - and if we are white, middle class it's not racist to feel moved by, and give help to people in our situation who are suffering.

Why not give to both - then everyone's happy!

[d000hg]

Are we saying we should only help people for whom help is the cheapest?

It could be argued the most good should be done.

[MaryPoppins]

Come on children. Play nicely.

I don't think anyone would argue that this is not a good cause, or think anyone who feels moved to donate money shouldn't.

I think the question (if rather crassly put!) was why THIS poor wee girl, would move you to donate that money as opposed to any of the other million good causes out there.

Although the point of African Aids sufferers being "more deserving" is arguable. Robyn's situation is tragic and just because she is white, middle class doesn't mean she is less deserving, although it is true that £300,000 could help this one little girl or thousands. Are we saying we should only help people for whom help is the cheapest?

And I don't think there is any problem in donating to what we relate to - and if we are white, middle class it's not racist to feel moved by, and give help to people in our situation who are suffering.

Why not give to both - then everyone's happy!

My point, but better made...!

[DiscoStu]

Was everyone on the sauce last night? Sheesh...

[EternalOptimist]

It could be argued the most good should be done.

thats the old Utilitarian, Humanist pholosophy. Maximise the amount of good/happiness that you can do.
They use it in Triage, deciding who to save and who to let die. Sadly these choices sometimes have to be made

[Paddy]

Would agree, I thought that the NHS was free, why do they (this poor child??) need all this money??
Where does the money go if (when??) she dies??

All questions I would want answered before my heart got in the way of my brain.

PZZ

If you read the article you will find that she has been treated on the NHS. The charity collection is for specialised preventative treatment that is available only at one hospital located in the USA.

The girl had “Stage 4 Neuroblastoma” which is almost the last stage in that type of cancer. In other words; if the cancer comes back it won’t be treated. (That is the normal).

The girl has been treated with chemotherapy (powerful drugs). These drugs give as bad as, if not worse with side affected symptoms than cancer hence why many adult patients opt not to be treated and instead try to live a normal life up until death.

I can understand the parents wanting to do everything for their child.

On a similar note, I did some work for a children’s hospice and it was tragic to see children in similar circumstances. I particularly remember on girl of about seven years age. She suffered from strokes. She had already had three and I was told that she would not survive the fourth which was imminent.


To G. Brown: Less money on bombs, more on health. Less money on setting fire to foreign countries and more spent on heating our homes.

[Flubster]

To G. Brown: Less money on bombs, more on health. Less money on setting fire to foreign countries and more spent on heating our homes.

If more money can be printed for QE (supposedly to help the flow of money to those that need it, but just seems to end up in the bonuses of city wheeler-dealers), then why can't money be printed to prop up the NHS...or is that too simple?