BeatenHorse: There are some lives not worth living.

You know who else talked about "Life unworthy of Life"??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life

mouell

Cafe standards have just been raised to 35 mpg by 2020 or somesuch - why not 500mpg?

Because 35 mpg is achievable with current, widely used and in-the-market technology.
500mpg is beyond the realm of current physics and technology, unless you can find a way to use E=mc² to convert the gasoline directly into energy...

Just that greedy pigs like you don't want to be told you can't buy your 6 ton ford Extinctions anymore because eventually ford will stop making them...

mouell: namegoeshere -

Now I can see where the actual problem lies - people who have absolutely no critical thinking skills.

An insurance policy is a contract to cover specific things based on what a person is willing to pay for - key word here is contract. Like law, it is not supposed to be arbitrary. I can't claim gas cost through my automobile insurance because it is not covered under the contract. I am sure that if I wanted to pay $30,000 a year for auto 'insurance', somebody would find it economically feasible to pay for my farking gas as part of the policy. Unless the money comes from somewhere, however, that ain't gonna happen under any circumstances.

Do people thing that insurance companies somehow have an endless supply of money and are somehow just being stingy? Like they produce these funds simply out of thin air?

Like all the Libtard arguments - Why limit minimum wage to, let's say, $7.50 an hour? Why not $50.00 - you pull one figure out of your ass - why not the other? Just being stingy? We all know you have the money and are just being greedy?

Cafe standards have just been raised to 35 mpg by 2020 or somesuch - why not 500mpg? Nancy Pelosi pulled the first figure out of her ass, if she were really worried about global warming - why not the second? Just as rational.
Only the libs can defy all laws of economics - and be stingy at the same time.

Wow, grumpy boy. You like putting words in people's mouths, don't you? And slinging that "libtard" term like a magic sword. I haven't commented as to whether the insurance company should or should not pay for the formula. I said, and I repeat, that your example sucks, as you can easily go buy a new car. This child can not go buy new DNA. Lousy comparison. And go find some other straight man for your "Laws the scary Libs is ruinnin' the country!!" rant.

CokeBear:

FTFA: The disease was rarely seen before 1995 but now about one child in 10,000 has it.

This is the real story here. Where did this disease come from? Which chemical that we are spewing into the atmosphere is doing this to our kids?

This.

Moonfisher:

I bet the kid could have eaten breast milk. There is really no such thing as being allergic to breast milk. You'd think if you already had a kid with this problem you would start nursing the next one immediately to strengthen her immunity system and prevent this.

And this.

What is really tragic here is that the parents don't seem to have exhausted all of their options, and the medical community is so used to doing business as usual that they haven't considered natural possibilities. It seems as though all of the decision-makers in this situation see only two options - ultra-expensive formula, or surgery.

Combining the powdered (and cheaper) Elacare with rice milk and honey is a likely possibility. So is reducing the child's exposure to environmental allergens in order to reduce the stress on her system overall. Generally, when someone has something horribly wrong with them like this, it pays to do things that bolster the rest of the patient's system, because it gives the body better options for healing itself.

Just sayin'.

/Not a doctor.
//Glad to be out of the medical industry.
///Tired of watching the uninsured subsidize the insured.

dc-kid: Insurance company should pay. I don't care if they say they can't afford it, that's what insurance is, gambling. They gambled that this cop and his family would be healthy and they wouldn't have to pay out more cash then the city pays them.


In this case they were wrong.

They'll get over it.


true indeed. very well put.

mouell: Like they produce these funds simply out of thin air?

Do you know how insurance companies come up with the funds the use to pay claims?

Only the libs can defy all laws of economics - and be stingy at the same time.

The mileage thing has bugger all to do with economics. As for your issue with mininum wage, if you take what min wage was releative to the average wage for hte first 20 years it existed, it would today be $15/hour. During the first 20 years it existed, the min wage produced no discernable negative impact upon the economy as a whole nor any discernable influence upon inflation.

Also there is this to consider, the lowest wage paid at Costco is $15/hr. This is much more than what is offered at Sam's Club. Yet in terms of profit per square foot of retail space, Costco makes more than Sam's Club. The argument that higher wages alone cause a shrinking of profits is not true.

Kids can outgrow allergies. This formula treatment isn't intended to be for life. They give the esophagus time to heal, then careful introduce food with a low allergenic potential into her diet. They do biopsies. If they find they moved too fast, they back off and leave her on formula only for a little while longer. This is what makes the formula a treatment instead of only a food. If it would be covered through a tube, it ought to be covered if she can still swallow. That's obvious to anyone brighter than the inside of a coffeebean.

Evolution will always get its way, but it isn't in a hurry, and beneficial traits can be carried along with unwanted ones--even lethal ones, so what is wrong with trying to preserve life? This is what the medical professionals are sworn to do. They battle red tape more than microbes, these days.

You know who else thought himself qualified to decide who deserved to live and who deserved to die? That's right.

Hmmm...all these posts, and nobody mentions that one possibility, "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy"? The mom's a nurse, so maybe she knows what to do...'course since everybody thinks she's a total MILF they're overlooking that....

Sorry, just lookin' at the bigger picture here, or imaginin' it.

mongbiohazard: How civilized are we really if - instead of ending things humanely at infancy - we painstakingly raise children who we know that their entire lives will be agony?

I've spent some time with people whose entire lives have been agony due to various medical conditions. They wish they were never born, but often find it difficult to overcome the survival instinct and commit suicide (though some do end up "succeeding" in committing suicide eventually). You raise a good point, but most people I've met will never accept it - they don't even want to think about it. Usually they won't even give you a counterargument - they'll just start insulting you. Well, that's just the way it is - our society is basically pro-life even if it means a life filled with agony. I don't think this will change anytime soon.

damiangerous: dc-kid: Insurance company should pay. I don't care if they say they can't afford it, that's what insurance is, gambling.
So...you would like the insurance company to go out of business? Just screw everyone else out there who has insurance through them? if you think insurance is "gambling" you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.


dc-kid is right. Insurance companies are taking the risk that they will have to pay less then they get paid. Its a gamble, no other way to look at it.
You are the one thats wrong.

stealer_of_sleep: mongbiohazard: How civilized are we really if - instead of ending things humanely at infancy - we painstakingly raise children who we know that their entire lives will be agony?

I've spent some time with people whose entire lives have been agony due to various medical conditions. They wish they were never born, but often find it difficult to overcome the survival instinct and commit suicide (though some do end up "succeeding" in committing suicide eventually). You raise a good point, but most people I've met will never accept it - they don't even want to think about it. Usually they won't even give you a counterargument - they'll just start insulting you. Well, that's just the way it is - our society is basically pro-life even if it means a life filled with agony. I don't think this will change anytime soon.

Hmmm... I think Maddie Stepanek contributed one HELL of a lot more to society in his very short, pain-filled life than many, many long lived "healthy" people. Should he have just had the needle at birth and denied the world his beautiful writing? One does not have to be "normal" to give to the world.

Oh, and as has been pointed out, no one is saying this kid's life will be agony. They are in the process of finding a diet that will work for her. Or should we give the box to everyone with Celeac's as well?

stealer_of_sleep: people whose entire lives have been agony due to various medical conditions. They wish they were never born,

And there are people with those same conditions or ones that are similar who don't have that wish. So, which ones should we base our policy on? Or should it be neither?

Not to bust in on everyone's hate-the-American-insurance-company slugfest, but...

For those covered by the government, total parenteral nutrition is rarely, if ever, paid in full. Usually the kid has to be on the intravenous plan before the gov't will pick up the check for every plasma bag, because you CANNOT buy that stuff at CostCo.

For malabsorption, digestive tract disorders, and similar diseases, most of the time the appropriate food is available through ordinary grocery stores, and is not covered by a health plan (nor should it be -- they don't pay for my steak, after all, and it wouldn't make sense for them to do so).

This article was obviously written by a reporter who wants to take a pot shot at privatized medicine, but in truth, it's a whole lot of "not news" to anyone who knows about this stuff.

/senior analyst in government health care administration Title XIX and XXI
//i practically pull my quadriceps every day with the kick i get out of the replies around here

Broken9754: Kyosuke: Wow, another insurance company refusing to waste our money artificially prolonging another person's painful and unproductive life.

If she follows a strict diet she'll have the same potential for a productive life as you've had.

/Which may not be saying much

For one thing, she will never be fat :)

Even if she doesn't do anything with her life, there is a lot of potential for research on allergies and food.

How do make people allergic to food so that they are not so fat.

Also, can people survive with a food in a pill?

namegoeshere

Hmmm... I think Maddie Stepanek contributed one HELL of a lot more to society in his very short, pain-filled life than many, many long lived "healthy" people. Should he have just had the needle at birth and denied the world his beautiful writing?

Just to be clear: this guy, right?
http://www.beliefnet.com/milestones/commemoration.asp?milestoneTypeID=2&mileston eID=58251
Mattie rather than Maddie if the webpage is correct.

I think Mattie Stepanek would have been the best person to ask about this while he was alive. If Maddie was happy to be alive despite his pain, well, that's great for him. I don't know Mattie personally, and I don't know what he would have wanted. But I can say that I know or have known people who suffered from incurable chronic pain and were not happy to be alive.

One does not have to be "normal" to give to the world.

I don't dispute this. I did not claim otherwise, right?


Oh, and as has been pointed out, no one is saying this kid's life will be agony.

Yes, I'm not saying that either. And, the particular sentence quoted from mongbiohazard also doesn't say that. The sentence I quoted from mongbiohazard raises a general point about "children who we know that their entire lives will be agony." If this particular kid is not going to suffer this fate, then this consideration just doesn't apply.

Or should we give the box to everyone with Celeac's as well?

Does Celeac's condemn a person to a life of agony? No, right? So, to answer your question: no.

WhyteRaven74: Jules Winnfield: cannot take care of himself without machines,

This alone would doom quite a few quadriplegics to death, seeing as they can't breathe on their own.

Yes it would. Too bad for them.

Zoultan: Welcome to life with government deciding what health care options you won't have.

This statement is dumber than a box of rocks. Actually...wait...sorry, let me try to explain this gently.

There is no one, repeat no one - no government, group, or individual - denying anybody any healthcare here. You are free to pay for whatever healthcare product or service you want. Honest. Go for it.

What they are refusing to do is transfer the cost to everyone else, when there is no legal basis to do so.

The fact is - what most people actually mean when they say things like the quote above is they are angry that government won't force everyone else to pay for their healthcare. It's just true.

janks369
people have used science to stop natural selection. therefore our race is becoming less and less hardy

Every time somebody brings up infant fatality rates in the U.S., this thought crosses my mind. I'd bet our rates would be much lower if their mothers had died in anything like the numbers they do in the country that have "better" stats than we do. I think that in Cuba these parents would have had a funeral a couple years ago.

Jules Winnfield: Yes it would. Too bad for them.

Ah, nothing like thinly veiled institutionalized murder.

There are people here that are actually saying "let her die". Wow.

The value of a civilized society is determined by how it takes care of it's less fortunate. Anyone who says that this kid should just croak has lost all rights to be called "human" or "civilized". They might as well climb a tree and go swinging, for they have de-evolved.

Simply amazing.

PopeSchmope: Simply amazing.

No true Scotsman...

EatHam: I would like to point out to that woman that Elecare costs about $400/mo, assuming 6 14oz cans every 2 weeks, which is reasonable.

As a dietary supplement, yes, that is reasonable. As the only source of nourishment for a growing toddler? (And, trust me, those sproglets grow DAMN fast!) Not so much. $1200 a month doesn't sound odd at all to me.

Also, TFA: "Is a 3-year-old going to have to sue the city of New York to get fed?" Jessie Devane asked

TODDLER GONNA HAFTA CHOKE A biatch?!

WhyteRaven74
And there are people with those same conditions or ones that are similar who don't have that wish. So, which ones should we base our policy on? Or should it be neither?

I'd say that when possible, we should let the person choose. Of course, for newborn babies and people in a coma, the problem is that the person can't communicate his/her choice. So, let's leave this for a moment and consider instead elderly people who are suffering and are able to communicate their choices. I'd say that they should have the right to choose doctor-assisted suicide if they so desire. In most parts of the U.S., they don't have this right.

Now, back to the case of individuals who can't communicate. Personally, if I thought there was a high probability that someone would be condemned to years of agony, I would really view death as being more humane. I realize that other people have different opinions on this. I think everyone should spend some time with people for whom life is a kind of torture before judging this issue one way or another. If you've done this and still disagree with me, well, I respect that you are entitled to your opinion.

stealer_of_sleep: namegoeshere

Hmmm... I think Maddie Stepanek contributed one HELL of a lot more to society in his very short, pain-filled life than many, many long lived "healthy" people. Should he have just had the needle at birth and denied the world his beautiful writing?

Just to be clear: this guy, right?
http://www.beliefnet.com/milestones/commemoration.asp?milestoneTypeID=2&mileston eID=58251
Mattie rather than Maddie if the webpage is correct.

I think Mattie Stepanek would have been the best person to ask about this while he was alive. If Maddie was happy to be alive despite his pain, well, that's great for him. I don't know Mattie personally, and I don't know what he would have wanted. But I can say that I know or have known people who suffered from incurable chronic pain and were not happy to be alive.

One does not have to be "normal" to give to the world.

I don't dispute this. I did not claim otherwise, right?


Oh, and as has been pointed out, no one is saying this kid's life will be agony.

Yes, I'm not saying that either. And, the particular sentence quoted from mongbiohazard also doesn't say that. The sentence I quoted from mongbiohazard raises a general point about "children who we know that their entire lives will be agony." If this particular kid is not going to suffer this fate, then this consideration just doesn't apply.

Or should we give the box to everyone with Celeac's as well?

Does Celeac's condemn a person to a life of agony? No, right? So, to answer your question: no.

How do you know at birth that a child's entire life will be agony? Who makes that call? Where do you draw the line at what constitutes agony? And yes, Mattie (got me on the spelling) did want very much to be alive. Until the day he died. But he wouldn't have been able to tell you that as an infant, would he?

Oh, and as for the Celeac's comment, I was lumping an answer to another post -sorry. Bad posting form.

Jesus farking Christ, the eugenicists in this thread are scary.

This is a joke.
We pay insurance premiums to insurance companies for this very reason. This girl's situation sucks-- but it's something the actuaries should have planned for.

What the fark is insurance for if not this kind of scenario?

damiangerous: trappedspirit: Running an insurance company is a gamble. You are gambling that you wont have enough claims to bankrupt the company.
Again, no it is not. At least not any more of a gamble than running any business. You clearly have no idea how the insurance industry works. There is an entire profession of people, known as actuaries, whose job it is to classify risk and assign values to it. Insurance companies also buy reinsurance from other insurance companies to cover their own losses.

Insurance companies are not in the business of GIVING helath care, that's what the hospitals are supposed to do. Insurance companies, and all businesses in general, are in the business of making money, in this case, by denying health care whenever they can.

All things considered, I'll take my chances with government funded health care over being denied the possibility of living for God only knows how many more years.

What the fark is insurance for if not this kind of scenario?

It's for making the shareholders and board members and executives of insurance companies rich.

PlantMan: All things considered, I'll take my chances with government funded health care over being denied the possibility of living for God only knows how many more years.

I don't disagree with the principle, but if you believe the government-- at any level-- is competent enough to provide health care, you haven't been in the U.S. for very long.

namegoeshere

How do you know at birth that a child's entire life will be agony?

You can't know for certain - after all, new advances in medicine are made each year and sometimes "incurable" diseases become curable. But take a look at the "Sad" baby on p. 10 of http://cep.lse.ac.uk/events/lectures/layard/RL030303.pdf
You can also see from the figure that brain scans can now be used to assess mental state.

The lower baby image is the "Sad" image because it induces sadness in viewers as assessed by brain scans - but the baby probably isn't too happy either. It doesn't take a doctor in this case to see that something is horribly wrong with the baby. Maybe it's fixable, I don't know.

Many medical conditions can be assessed at birth or even before birth.

Who makes the call? It should be a doctor or a group of doctors. If a doctor says that is very likely (let's say that he estimates a 90% chance) that a particular baby is going to have a horrendous life, do you want to take that chance? Maybe you do. I realize that are different opinions on this subject.

Let me just conclude by repeating what I wrote to WhyteRaven74:
Personally, if I thought there was a high probability that someone would be condemned to years of agony, I would really view death as being more humane. I realize that other people have different opinions on this. I think everyone should spend some time with people for whom life is a kind of torture before judging this issue one way or another. If you've done this and still disagree with me, well, I respect that you are entitled to your opinion.

mongbiohazard: Kludge: Jesus freaking Christ!

I wonder how many of you "let 'er die, durrrrr....gene pool...durrr" people are under the age of 13?


I made a lot better argument than "let 'er die, durrrrr....gene pool...durrr". Considering that's what you got out of it it seems like you don't have a valid counter-argument.

And I'm in my mid 30's. And basically, I wouldn't want my kid or myself to suffer like that for their entire lives. Euthanization at infancy is far more merciful and humane. It's simply cruel to meticulously raise someone with problems so severe and basic to an age where they can fully appreciate their suffering.

Having a disability of some kind is not a big deal... but like I said, there are limits to ALL principles beyond which they are no longer applicable. Being allergic to all food is an example of this. It's the exception that does not disprove the rule.


Also, if you think this is God telling these people they shouldn't breed...what is God telling you by making you completely unattractive to the opposite sex, thereby limiting your human contact to trolling Fark?


I don't believe in God.
I have a fiancee.
I'll be at a party later tonight with many good friends - quite a few of which are very attractive.

So what does that tell you about your powers of insight?

Sounds like you don't have kids. After you get married and your spouse kicks out some crotch-fruit, go ahead and read this thread again.

PlantMan: , by denying health care whenever they can

Actually that's not historically how insurance companies have made or furthered, rather, their profits. Denying claims is something quite recent.

That makes me sad. Regular formula can get expensive, I can't imagine paying out of pocket for the prescription junk. Insurance companies are evil.

_{/please don't drop me Aetna}

Moonfisher: I bet the kid could have eaten breast milk. There is really no such thing as being allergic to breast milk. You'd think if you already had a kid with this problem you would start nursing the next one immediately to strengthen her immunity system and prevent this.

Dialup at my parents sucks. I can't keep up on the latest threads.

THIS.

I bet all these food allergies are coming about because of that damn formula. Breast milk rocks, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fats, and *gasp* GERMS.

We're sterilizing ourself out of existence. I can't wait for the next black plague to come along and wipe everyone out that didn't grow up licking dirty floors, eating dirt, etc.

I'm also rarely sick, if ever. Even in the dorms. I'd walk around barefoot never once did I get foot fungus. Never once did my girlfriend give me what ever she had.

My roommate had to sleep on the bottom bunk because he got nose bleeds in the night. His dad was a dentist and kept the house sterile (as I've put it together). He took 3-4 pills a day plus had an inhaler. Yes I was roommates with Milhouse.

Best part is. It's FREE! It's like having your own cow (ok, maybe I won't use the analogy with my wife someday) on tap.

It's like the replicators in star trek that always outputs a dietary balanced meal.

fanbladesaresharp:
I said I would let MYSELF die. Pay the sacrifice so that other's lives are NOT destroyed. Jesus christ people can't even understand posts let alone RTFA.

Let's consider this: You'd rather have yourself "put under" because you have huge medical bills? Check out an itemized invoice: Prescription drugs are exhorbitant without special purchase agreements. Boxes of tissues and over-the-counter meds and goods are stupendously inflated because, well, they can. Doctor, nurse and hospital care all include some percent to malpractice insurance. Insurance companies regularly make exceptions after the fact, causing the patient to become financially responsible, and that's if you have insurance to begin with -- a friend's mom was told, in writing, that she had to sign a contingency to sell her house to the hospital? medical payer? Whatever. If she couldn't pay them back in cash eventually -- i.e., if she was debilitated or died.

I agree that there could be some reasonable place that a person decides to stop treatment, but basing it on some ridiculously calculated bill from a bunch of gougers shouldn't be it. Quality of life? Maybe.

darkscout: Moonfisher: I bet the kid could have eaten breast milk. There is really no such thing as being allergic to breast milk. . . .I bet all these food allergies are coming about because of that damn formula. Breast milk rocks, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fats, and *gasp* GERMS.

I'm all for boobage, and breast milk is probably fine for the kid in the article IF the mom/donor has a VERY restricted diet. Not saying it's impossible or not the most desirable option, but there's still that caveat.

We're sterilizing ourself out of existence. I can't wait for the next black plague to come along and wipe everyone out that didn't grow up licking dirty floors, eating dirt, etc.


Heh. My kid will RULE THE WORLD.
Uh, sweetie, what's that in your mouth?

SusanIvanova: Dododado: Then let me help you. We should preserve human life.

Is that so difficult a concept to understand??

Apparently, it is for some farkers, though I hold a faint hope that they're just trolling. I agree that this poor girl shouldn't have children of her own, but the "fark her, let her die like a dog, cold and alone" contingent are, well, unfathomably cruel. What the hell is wrong with you people?

You see, it's because some of the next school shooters are learning cruelty and psychopathy on fark. What you see here is basically their 'homeworks'.

My son is on a similar formula, it's called Neocate 1+. It costs about $30 a packet and he needs a minimum of 3 packets a day. He has a G tube and gets all his food this way. If he drank the formula, the insurance company wouldn't cover it. Since he has a G tube, it's covered. It's crazy.

He has a variation of this disease. Basically the same thing, but in his intestines. He is also a high functioning autistic. At 4 years old he reads anything and does some basic math. Last week he spelled Xylophone to me when I asked him what some good "X" words were. It's a game we play, lame by any standards but a 4 year olds :-) He is also well versed in sign language.

Seeing him on the street you couldn't tell him apart from any other child. Interacting with him, you would think him shy and highly intelligent. Playing with him, you would laugh with him, and smile more often then not.

I'll leave it at that. Anything else I will come out as fuel for the trlls.....

First, the garbage about how much she is using. The prices seem to me to be what it would cost for the powder--the parents aren't being wasteful here.

Second, quality of life. I see no reason to think she has all that bad a quality of life.

Third, having the second kid. Why should the parents think it's geneticoontil the second kid showed it? After all, neither of them had it.

Fourth, further reproduction. I do agree neither the parents nor either of the kids should have kids until a reasonable treatment for the situation exists.

Fifth, the insurance. As far as I'm concerned they should pay the difference between typical food costs and what this costs. This is a clear medical need and by no stretch of the imagination something they simply desire.

Sixth, whether the insurance can afford it. It sounds to me like it's a small group without the reserves to handle big bills. It was garbage from day 1, in other words. My employer self-insures--but there's also outside insurance in effect if the claims go above some specified amount.

As for point 4 being advocating of eugenics: I'm not asking anything of them that I haven't already decided personally. I inherited some pretty bad food allergies (my mother's didn't manifest until after she had me) and I have categorically decided against reproduction.

susler: Their first priority (as with all business) is to their policyholders (customers), not their stockholders (greedy ratbastard leeches)...

FAIL

All business has a primary responsibility to their shareholders. Everything else is secondary.

This is why health care insurance companies should not be for profit entities. They should be only not for profits as the Blue Crosses once were and as a dwindling number of them now are.

For profit entities and affordable health care don't mix for the precise reason that their first responsibility is to their shareholders, not to their subscribers.

yes

So, anyone stop to think that maybe this kid just wasn't meant to survive? Sure you can keep someone alive if you shove a feeding tube down their throat. But seriously, when you can only survive off this formula.. how long is it going to keep her going?

Can she live off liquid nutrition her entire life, or is she going to end up having to eat it all the time? If it's $1200/month now, imagine how much it'll cost when she's an adult.

Blame the company that makes the formula, if anyone. I doubt it really costs $1200/month to manufacture this for a three year old. Father being a cop is mostly irrelevant, but in my situation it only makes it more of an apparent sap-story. I don't even like cops, they tend to be power mongering assholes. Which means this kid probably wouldn't grow up to be a model citizen anyway.

Ok I just have to post to this because it really pisses me off. I don't even want to wait to make a new account so I am using my husbands name... I am not on Fark much.

It is painfully obvious that most of you are men, most likely pretty young, without any children.

First off one of the later comments about breastmilk, Yes, you can be allergic to breastmilk, anything the mom eats gets into the milk. For example if the baby/child is allergic to milk and the mom eats ANYTHING with milk in it, it is passed onto the kid. NO the feeding tube is not the best option, even with a feeding tube it is likely a special formula would still be needed. She is NOT a vegetable, she is a child who is functional besides not being able to eat.

One of my good friends has a son the same age as my daughter with EE and he can eat only a few foods. (oh and BY THE WAY they went on to have a second child as well, EE IS NOT ALWAYS GENETIC! Their second child has no signs of EE)

Food trials are ongoing.. certain foods AND environmental triggers can cause eosinophils which causes the inflammation. It is normal and good to be testing different types of foods to allow her to eat more kinds of foods and decrease the amount of formula. An elimination diet may be all that is needed for some people with EE. You can not survive off pears and rice (or whatever other "safe food") so the formula IS NECESSARY. Oh and by the way some insurance companies DO pay for formula.. but usually for infants. My insurance paid for Nutramigen for my daughter when she was an infant. She had severe reflux and milk and soy allergies. It is "over the counter" but many doctors can write a prescription for it and it can be covered.

Kids with EE usually have other allergies besides food. It is important for them to be responsible about what they eat. It can be life-threatening for them to attend daycare or another situation that involves a caregiver because just EATING can kill them. It is possible to grow out of the condition so she will not require the formula.

As for her weight, thats normal, my almost 4 year old is almost 40 lbs. Not to mention this girl in the story likely is on steroid treatments which can also cause weight gain.

Oh and I do realize that it is completely pointless to try and argue anything on fark, but I just had to state some facts.

Raspil: Face it, don't get sick...anywhere. If you do, you're on your own. Learn first aid and get some Robitussin....yeah, let the tussin get in there....


Yeah, Robitussin will cure cancer or Alzheimer's or diabeetus. You're a f*cking genius! Please run for president of the world so you can save us all. Dickhead.

//I know this is Fark and most of you are evil bastards but come on now. There's your usual dumb evil and then there's wishing a child was dead because she has a disease that has no cure. That's just odious. Should the average married couple not have a child just because there might be a chance that child will have some disease that will negatively impact their lives? Something is seriously wrong with some of you and I know I'm not talking to anyone who is listening but to those who are -- quit being assholes. No one thinks it's f*cking cute.

it's a farking comedy sketch. take the stick out of your ass.

/and remember, when you run out, put some water in the bottle, shake it up, MO TUSSIN!

Moonfisher: I bet the kid could have eaten breast milk. There is really no such thing as being allergic to breast milk. You'd think if you already had a kid with this problem you would start nursing the next one immediately to strengthen her immunity system and prevent this.

Bullshiat. There are kids born lactose sensitive, intolerant, or allergic.

Kyosuke: meekychuppet: you're boring, unoriginal, cliched and hackneyed.

And you're redundant.

I stand by my original opinion, whether or not anyone else agrees with me.

I agree with you, man!

This is just Evolution trying to do its job.

Stupid people trying to fark everything up.