60 year old lady gives birth in Calgary

The story came out yesterday about a 60 year old aldy who gave birth in Calgary. She had wanted to get pregnant, but none of the doctors in Canada would do the artificial insemination procedure for her. She then went to India to get the procedure done, and came back here to have the child.

There has been some debate about the ethics of a sixty year old having children, but there is one question that hasn't been raised. I'm not 100% sure how I sit on this, but thought is should be open for debate:

If this person went against all the Doctor's advice and went to India to get the procedure done, should she bear some of the costs for the care she received in Canada during the pregnancy and the delivery? Is the Canadian health care system designed to offer free health care regardless, or is there, inherent in the system, a requirement for the patient to consult and abide with the recommendations and directives of the system? I'm tempted to say that if this person wanted children at her age, but no Dr. in the country would perform the procedure, and then goes to India to get the procedure done, why should the taxpayer have to foot the bill for her medical care related to this in Canada?

thats a heck of a good question

But does it then become a slippery slope?

What about smokers? Should they pay for their care when they get lung cancer? Or the morbidly obese (overeating)?

Where do you draw the line? Granted this is a little different than smoking or eating ( not an addiction).

I will have to ponder this for a bit...

St Norberter wrote:But does it then become a slippery slope?

What about smokers? Should they pay for their care when they get lung cancer? Or the morbidly obese (overeating)?

Where do you draw the line? Granted this is a little different than smoking or eating ( not an addiction).

well the thing about smokers is... with the amount the goverment make off that, they are already paying for their health care.

just kidding... *side note* today is 5 months since i quit

IG Guy wrote:

St Norberter wrote:But does it then become a slippery slope?

What about smokers? Should they pay for their care when they get lung cancer? Or the morbidly obese (overeating)?

Where do you draw the line? Granted this is a little different than smoking or eating ( not an addiction).

well the thing about smokers is... with the amount the goverment make off that, they are already paying for their health care.

just kidding... *side note* today is 5 months since i quit

Well.....you pay taxes on cigarettes, so in effect you are paying for any additional health care you require as a result of smoking.

yep I did my part...

what about the people that go to other countries and have body parts surgically removed even though they are healthy... should we give them 100% when they come back to Canada?

Deank wrote:what about the people that go to other countries and have body parts surgically removed even though they are healthy... should we give them 100% when they come back to Canada?

a part of me wants to say no, but another part says they are still canadian...

Deank wrote:what about the people that go to other countries and have body parts surgically removed even though they are healthy... should we give them 100% when they come back to Canada?

I'm not sure I follow on this. What's the recommendation of the Canadian Health care provider? Is it a failure of the health care system? Or is this an elective procedure not deemed necessary by the health care provider? If is is the latter, I believe they should be paying for the out of country procedure.

IG Guy wrote:

Deank wrote:what about the people that go to other countries and have body parts surgically removed even though they are healthy... should we give them 100% when they come back to Canada?

a part of me wants to say no, but another part says they are still canadian...

Is that part that says no still in Canada??

Can I apply for the job of "the decider", so everyone's ethical, moral, and spiritual concerns can be looked after?
Health care for all is the rule of law!

All my part that have been removed here in canada and cause appartantly they stopped functioning.. But who knows if those parts are still in canada

"Can I apply for the job of "the decider", so everyone's ethical, moral, and spiritual concerns can be looked after?"

you can apply, I dont have to accept your application though

IC Guy- not sure what you are trying to say?

This lady had twins- and I would like to tell her Congratulations! For 40 years they had been trying to have kids!
This has nothing to do with any of us!
This was done by "God", according to the husband!
"God is Great", another proof that "HE" exists!!

rosencrentz wrote:IC Guy- not sure what you are trying to say?

This lady had twins- and I would like to tell her Congratulations! For 40 years they had been trying to have kids!
This has nothing to do with any of us!
This was done by "God", according to the husband!
"God is Great", another proof that "HE" exists!!

What?!??!?!?

It was artificial insemination. It has nothing to do with God!

rosencrentz wrote:Can I apply for the job of "the decider", so everyone's ethical, moral, and spiritual concerns can be looked after?
Health care for all is the rule of law!

But where is the line? If health care for all is the rule of law, why can't I get laser eye surgery or any type of cosmetic surgery for free? These have to be done under the supervision of a medical doctor, so isn't that health care?

St Norberter wrote:

rosencrentz wrote:Can I apply for the job of "the decider", so everyone's ethical, moral, and spiritual concerns can be looked after?
Health care for all is the rule of law!

But where is the line? If health care for all is the rule of law, why can't I get laser eye surgery or any type of cosmetic surgery for free? These have to be done under the supervision of a medical doctor, so isn't that health care?

I dont count new boobies some thing that should be covered by the health care system. But if Laser treatment could inprove your life (you are able to advance your career or even get a job) then yes. but if it is just because you do not want to wear your glasses anymore, then no...

as sad as it is new boobies have definately been proven to work to get better jobs and advance careers

Deank wrote:as sad as it is new boobies have definately been proven to work to get better jobs and advance careers

I would rather hire some one that wasn't blind. wait, that sounds as bad as hiring some cause they have bigger boobies...

This women is being selfish , the kid will be graduating with a 78 yr old mother maybe there. Hell she could die tommorow.

IG Guy wrote:

Deank wrote:as sad as it is new boobies have definately been proven to work to get better jobs and advance careers

I would rather hire some one that wasn't blind. wait, that sounds as bad as hiring some cause they have bigger boobies...

LOL in my case I would have more chances if I hired the blind person

lol and here I am trying to be PC...

Pavolo wrote:Hell she could die tommorow.

So could anyone!

FlyingRat wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Hell she could die tommorow.

So could anyone!

that is not true at all.
Ronald Regan for instance.. he could not die tommorow...