digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at dailymail.co.uk

Two-year-old boy is kept alive by daily of doses of Viagra

dailymail.co.uk — A two-year-old boy who is being kept alive by Viagra, faces an uncertain future because of proposed cuts by the Government's drug rationing body agency. Oliver Sherwood has the sex drug crushed into his food four times a day to control pulmonary hypertension (PH), a rare condition that causes chronic high blood pressure.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ipek, on 03/11/2008, -3/+52Poor kid. Still, I wonder, doesn't have any side effects taking all that Viagra?
    • Lust4Me, on 03/11/2008, -0/+24As with most drug therapies, the benefit outweighs the potential deficit. With pulmonary hypertension, the pulmonary vessels overly constrict and this drug helps to remedy that. Without dramatic intervention, the right ventricle has to work too hard to pump blood through the lungs and will eventually fail. So, this is a good solution - they'll need to deal with other problems as they arise.
      • coyote1284, on 03/11/2008, -4/+44"they'll need to deal with other problems as they arise."
        *immature giggling*
      • guyincognitoo, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Pfizer markets Viagra under a different name for just that problem. It is also available in higher doses.
        http://www.revatio.com/
      • dbalaski, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2That is what the drug was originally intended for -- reduce constriction in vessels in the circulatory system
        -- the fact that it is effective against Erectile dysfunction is the side effect!

        If it helps the kid live-- well I am glad Pfizer could help !!!

        Making a better world people :)

    • twinklyJesus, on 03/11/2008, -45/+9It's like this, dumbass, Viagra was originally developed to treat the problems this kid has. It was found to have a "side effect." The side effect was more valuable than treating blood pressure/heart problems.

      I wonder about the side effects any children you could sire will experience from prolonged exposure to your concentrated ignorance!
      • EvilDr.X, on 03/11/2008, -1/+59Wow, twinklyJesus is a hell of a lot meaner than regular Jesus.
        • twinklyJesus, on 03/11/2008, -21/+4New and improved! Now one inch longer!
        • jhuebel, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3. (digg needs the option to delete comments)
      • enclaved, on 03/11/2008, -2/+37Hey *****, calm down. He didn't know something, he asked a valid question. Get over yourself and realize that you are not special because your doctor went over the history of Viagra before he wrote your script.
      • greenm1981, on 03/11/2008, -1/+7What in ipek's comment gives you reason to believe ipek is a dumbass? Go somewhere else. We don't want you here.
        • twinklyJesus, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2What's this "we" *****? You have a mouse in your pocket?
          • enclaved, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2That's a great line, but since he wasn't talking about you and him, you are using it wrong.
      • theOster, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3try decaf...
      • lead2thehead, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2troll... troll... troll your boat
      • Disneyisevil50, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1ah, so it doesn't count if something bad happens to him because it's not really a side affect because the original purpose was to help with pulmonary conditions, right.
      • bluto36, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2watch out twinkly you pissed off a bunch of other idiots that did not know that. careful you don't know how angry retards can be
        • twinklyJesus, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2There is nothing more humiliating than preparing for the daily Digg rampage, only to have some guy that "reads and stuff" tell you the facts and make it obvious to your peers you don't have a clue. How embarrassing is that?
    • afx1, on 03/11/2008, -2/+30if his erection lasts more than 4 hours, make sure he contacts his physician
    • mrynit, on 03/11/2008, -0/+10He could become blind.
      • jhuebel, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4If the choice is between blind or dead, I think I could live without my sight.
        • jhuebel, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I understand why I'm being dugg down, since the parent reply was said in jest. But in all seriousness, the real risk of blindness by taking the meds is outweighed by the risk of death if you don't.
    • TheUngod, on 03/11/2008, -3/+1Hm...at his age, could he have an erection lasting more than 4 hours?
    • Disneyisevil50, on 03/11/2008, -0/+15yes, it's sad to see life so hard on a child
    • Zippo, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4Well, let's not forget that Viagra was discovered when scientists were trying to create a drug for this child's illness. boners were a noticeable side-effect... which is how Viagra came to be.
    • jimjoke, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1The pics in this article are so perverted.
      Why is he titty-***** his mom in the 1st one, and rubbing one out in the 3rd? =/
    • Xondar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1If you read the article you would notice that his mom says that the dose is too low to have "that" kind of effect.
  • SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -10/+99Not now, but when he's 12.............. Being British, I think he'll have more than a stiff upper lip...
    • shadowman99, on 03/11/2008, -47/+12If you had RTFA you'd know he's not going to ever be 12.
      Sorry, but dying children should get a pass from smart ass remarks.
    • oqm4, on 03/11/2008, -4/+1Witty.
  • twoboxen, on 03/11/2008, -4/+63Ironically, that's how he came to exist as well.
    • kaplanfx, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah this article is kinda pointless. Viagra was discovered because test subjects for a hypertension drug were getting uncontrollable stiffies during the trials.
  • mike17032, on 03/11/2008, -17/+53Clearly we need socialized healthcare in this country..... oh wait.
    • KraftDinner101, on 03/11/2008, -20/+4oh wait what? You should finish your sentence.
      • Egoist, on 03/11/2008, -5/+21Since you need is spelled out:

        Socialized medicine isn't the cure-all that many believe it is. You can either be left without treatment because your insurance doesn't cover it in a privatized medical industry, or be left without treatment because your government doesn't want to spend anymore money.
        • capiCrimm, on 03/11/2008, -3/+7or we could deregulate the thing and take away the government/medical industries monopoly on drug distribution and medical care. Always a third choice.
        • starkruzr, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1The little guy can apply pressure to the government. He cannot apply pressure to the medical industry.

          @ capiCrimm: Your plan depends on everyone being completely and perfectly informed about the drug distribution and medical care companies they choose. This is not possible.
      • mrhahn, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4The Daily Mail isn't the gospel that many believe it is either. Take these things with a pinch of salt.
    • pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -5/+6yeah, he'd be better off getting nothing.
      • sanotaan, on 03/11/2008, -5/+7his mother would be better off pursuing litigation against a private insurance company than petitioning against the nhs.
        • Nyctobello, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1Private. Aha. That is like me suing Boeing for a noisy ride.
      • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -6/+4So its my responsibility to pay for it. Sorry, if that's the case then he is better off dead. I am not going to be a slave to this little kid..........
        • Yez70, on 03/11/2008, -2/+6Good to know you're stand o0n the issue.
          If you ever need a transplant or get cancer and can't work - you can die too. It'll save the rest of us from having to pay for you.

          Jerk.
        • Vindexus, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Only the rich deserve to live, right?
      • unpolloloco, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2no, in the US, he'd have access, he'd just bankrupt his parents in the process
        bankruptcy>>death
        • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1At least he wont be bankrupting the American people in the process.
    • Thuktun, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Since this same thing could happen under any of socialized medicine, the system the USA has now, and purely commercially-insured healthcare, pointing out that this has happened under a form of socialized medicine proves...what, exactly?
      • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -4/+5It is a lot easier to sue a commercial insurer than it is to go after the government. Besides it is cheaper to have private insurance than it is to have socialized medicine.
        • GNAAstaos, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3Saying it's cheaper to have private insurance is like saying it's cheaper for a select few people to have mansions built of gold bricks than it is for everyone to have single-family homes built out of silver bricks. Technically true, but you're entirely missing the point.
          • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Missing the point maybe but I know I am not willing to support some socialized system where I am the slave and the people who don't work are the slavemasters. At least I can still afford my insurance. If we had socialized medicine the tax implication to me would kill me and I would no longer be able to pay for my own insurance.
        • unpolloloco, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4I think he hit the point exactly - the US is in no way financially able to pay for socialized healthcare.

          Currently in the US, people pay something like 2.2 trillion for healthcare. The US collects approximately 1.1 trillion in income taxes each year. Assuming only a 50% overhead in additional costs due to system inefficiencies brought on by handing the system over to the government, income taxes only quadruple. I think quadrupling income taxes might cause some minor issues to say the least.

          food>>free healthcare
    • BabyWookie, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2We clearly do. What's your point?
      • salinemist, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1Move to Tennessee and experience the wonder of TennCare.

    • dsmx, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2So you have a choice between this or having 40-50 million people not covered by health insurance because it's too expensive. At least in the UK you have a choice between the NHS and private health insurance.
      • BabyWookie, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Exactly. All those NHS scare-mongers seem to conviniently forget that, in most places where they have UHS, it co-exists with private medical care.
        • uttles, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Sure, if by "coexists" you mean you have no choice but to pay for it (taxes) and if you want private insurance you have to pay it out of your own pocket and you don't get any money back from the government for not using their ***** plan.

          Also, the private insurance has had demand drop so low because of the NHS that it's outrageously expensive, so that only the rich elite can afford it.

          So effectively, in the UK, the rich elite get good insurance while the rest of the plebians are stuck with the ***** government NHS that gets to choose when they live or die.

          Not so different from the way life was under system of nobility, really. THAT'S WHY WE LEFT
  • matthewdestroys, on 03/11/2008, -5/+11four times a day X 4 hour boner = hard day at work
  • OutThisLife, on 03/11/2008, -26/+8Dailymail. Buried.
  • alphaterminus, on 03/11/2008, -0/+16PPH sucks. Pulmonary transplant is the only definative treatment, which itself is a death sentance after several years. Poor kid.
  • unicronband, on 03/11/2008, -11/+166Must be hard on him.
    • cohortq, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1That was awesome. I think all digg users should do you a favor and keep this awesome quote at 69 diggs.
    • krazykor, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0I would digg your comment, but currently its at 69 diggs and i don't want to be the one to ruin that.
    • ligyron, on 03/11/2008, -3/+0I imagine when he gets older he will be the head of his class
    • tankdilla, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1I think we have a winner.
  • displaced1, on 03/11/2008, -1/+71So many possible jokes, but after reading that story and seeing the kid, I just feel sorry for him.
  • markbrown, on 03/11/2008, -11/+126Side effects include PLEASIN' THA LADIES.
  • NateDiggle, on 03/11/2008, -11/+2He must have raging toddler erections all the days.
    • rafor, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5His body has probably adjusted to the medication so unlikely that he has erections all the time.
  • affanjam, on 03/11/2008, -9/+4I cant seem to believe any stories that come from the dailymail.co.uk they sound too made up.
  • Feyr, on 03/11/2008, -18/+92 years old? come on, just make a new one
    • Viti, on 03/11/2008, -1/+7/waits for flames to rise
    • jhuebel, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3Wow. You've won the prize for one of the harshest comments ever. Your reward is a thumbs down.
    • Jeffler, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Would you have liked your parents to do the same to you in the same situation?
  • pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -2/+85viagra was initially designed to treat hypertension (high blood pressure) and erections were a side effect so they marketed it for that instead. what's the big deal?
    • RogueMountie, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1"Big" deal! See? Erection jokes never get too old or too obscure.
  • rennie246, on 03/11/2008, -7/+0Resisting the initial shock reaction that he's taking Viagra, the problem I have with this is that this drug (I would certainly hope/assume) hasn't previously been testing on the affects of a young child. So, while it may be helping him in the short term, could have disastrous long-term consequences. I mean, we've all seen the commercials where they rapidly list off the potentil side effects...

    Still though, it's pretty sad that they have to use Viagra for his treatment because the other (more appropriate) drugs are too expensive. I don't understand how drug companies can make profit off the backs of sick and dying children.
    • yngtimmy, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4How do you think they MAKE the drug? Money just appears out of thin air? They make money so they can make and develop more drugs we all take for granted.
      • rennie246, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0Yeah, thanks for the news flash TIPS, I'm fully aware that they need money to develop the drugs. Are you implying that they are non-for-profit? I'm not against any company making a profit, but it IS a known fact that many companies do over inflate the price of sometimes life-saving drugs to maximize profits.
    • thugok, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4In some situations the side effect of not taking the drug is death. I would deal with some nose bleeds or the occasional headache if the drug was keeping me alive.
    • gfnw, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1He should hold off on taking it until proper tests can be done. Then, in a few years, we'll be sure if it's safe for him to- wait? He died? Oh well. At least he isn't suffering from side effects.
      • rennie246, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0I didn't say he shouldn't take it, especially facing death, i just questioned how well they've studied long term side effects in CHILDREN...
    • leoedin, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4How do you think they discovered viagra? The erection was a side effect of the drug, which was intended simply to increase blood flow/lower blood pressure. It is not going to be prescribed without clinical trials.
      • rennie246, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0And did these clinical trials include children as young as 2yrs old? Did they follow them for years? Please enlighten me when you find those case studies.
    • InferiorWang, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2"I don't understand how drug companies can make profit off the backs of sick and dying children."
      What you don't understand is how much it costs to create a new drug, run tests, then try for FDA approval. Someone has to pay for the costs that go into getting a drug to market.
      • PdxPhoenix, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I thought I heard recently that the drug co's are spending more on marketing than R&D... So people are paying to have drugs marketed to them.
        I'm not against profit, but why are the drug co's marketing their product to the general public instead of to doctors? Oh right, campaign contributions & deregulation.
    • rennie246, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0Apparently, you must all work for drug companies with the sarcastic negative comments you're throwing. You've obviously missed my point. I was simply questioning how well this drug (ok, fine, it was originally intended for this condition) has been tested in YOUNG CHILDREN and OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. Also, I do not think any child should be in a position where he/she could die, or have to take medication that may not necessarily be the best one for them or the safest because their parents couldn't afford anything else. Yes, I realize that's the world we live in, but that doesn't mean I have to accept or agree with it.
  • funatwork2, on 03/11/2008, -9/+2bush stole my dentures
  • shadowman99, on 03/11/2008, -6/+43This is a two year old kid who according to the story will probably not live to be five.
    Does everything have to be a joke? Seriously, it's a dying child.
    I'm a dad. I just can't see the humor.
    • Frippledip, on 03/11/2008, -5/+18With all due respect, lighten up, Francis. People deal with stress differently. I'd rather laugh than cry.
      • shadowman99, on 03/11/2008, -6/+11If you're laughing a a dying kid, I'm not the one with the problem.
        • Syphon8, on 03/11/2008, -4/+16Today you can't laugh at dying children, tomorrow clowns -- WHERE WILL THE MADNESS END?
        • marktastic, on 03/11/2008, -1/+8i don't think he is laughing AT him. It's called lightening up the situation.
    • EatChex89, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5It's not the dying kid that is funny, that is a true tragedy. The means at which he is kept alive is somewhat humorous due to what the product is used for. As another person said earlier, this article is being publicized to get public support for big pharma.
    • mattletron, on 03/11/2008, -0/+8It is a sad story. But every sad story has in it the seed of dark humor. If the child were being kept alive by daily doses of aspirin, it wouldn't be nearly as funny, if funny at all. In the days, months, and years following shocking and tragic events such as 9-11, no one dared make a joke as the wounds were still very much fresh and profound. Years later I have heard comedians do skits involving these tragic events, and they are now funny. I think that humor is a wonderful and powerful part of the healing process. And judging by the years of digg comments which have filled these pages, one should expect humor relating to every single story. I have made a semi-game out of guessing what the comments are going to be before I read them, I'm almost always spot on - and I'm sure many others could do the same.

      So to answer your question, yes, everything can be a joke. Who knows, maybe I'll die in some terribly tragic but ironic or hysterical way.

      I am a dad too. And this is of course a tragic situation this child and his family are being put through. And of course there is nothing wrong with you stating your opinion here. You have every right to be offended, amused, or even stop reading the site. We hope you don't, but one must remember that a story hitting digg is like chum hitting piranha filled waters. When coming to a forum where anyone and everyone with a computer can drop his two cents, one must expect that some of those two cents are going to offend. But it is still a vital aspect of our culture that we can have places where so many voices can be heard. In the end, it is the choice of all of us to come here. It can be anyone's choice to leave, and it can be anyone's choice to stay, be offended, and say so. At the same time, one must expect that anything "male enhancement" related, is going to raise some snickers.
      • shadowman99, on 03/11/2008, -4/+2I guess it bothers me that the concept of reverence is dead. Parents used to teach their children that sometimes you don't laugh at grave things. I wish respect for the child and his parent's pain would outweigh the chance to make one more lame Viagra joke. I'd feed my kids whatever it takes to keep them alive, social stigma be damned.
        I'm guessing many of the people joking about this article are young (teen) people. If they showed this story to their parents they'd probably be surprised to hear "If it were you that was sick I'd do that same thing"
        If it were one of my children... That's the other thing, once I became a dad, every time I read one of these stories, for just a moment it feels like my kid.
        Stories like this shouldn't be feed to the piranha pool.
        • Nojiko, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4Reverence isn't dead any more than politeness is dead. There have always been people like this, but if you had heard this story in the paper and only talked to the guys at work, it'd most likely just be a strange but tragic story, no real humor invoked by anyone present there.

          However, this is the Internet. You have a majority of younger males over all here, yes, but there is still a wide variety of people, from different backgrounds with different values. You disagreeing with their cavalier attitude toward something tragic is part of what's so amazingly powerful about getting so many views heard on an issue.

          You want reverence? Stick to your own crowd. You want to open your mind to everyone's perspective so you can form your own, less narrow perspective? These kinds of places allow for that insight to possibly happen.

          "Is nothing sacred?" you say? Some people think cows are sacred, don't you dare tell them otherwise. Some people say human hardships are sacred, don't you dare try to coldly absorb the information and decide it's humorous or that there might be a silver lining instead of sharing in the pain of people you have no personal connection to. And some people say life itself is sacred, don't you dare tell them some people devote their lives to the suffering of others. (Oh wait, we're not supposed to care about other people, nevermind.)

          It's just not that black and white, everyone deserves to have their own perspective, deciding that you're right and they're wrong based on nothing but another version of "Holier than thou" is what I, from my perspective, have a problem with.

          Laughing at Viagra is not the same as laughing at the sick child, the distinction should be clear.
        • mattletron, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1The concept of reverence isn't totally dead. Although the majority of comments might be of the humorous sort, your comment and a few others show that while we certainly have our share of teenage jokers here, we also have a few more "mature" voices.

          I'm sure that anyone with a real commitment to their child would also have used the medication for one of its multiple beneficial uses. There is of course nothing wrong with that. But I also imagine that some of the people making jokes might themselves be good parents who would do anything for the health of their child. Further, some of the jokers might not think it was as funny if it was their child or themselves suffering. That is the nature of our global media culture. It both gives us distance from suffering and informs us of more of it. Distance, be it time or space enables humor to exist. I know I've been through some trying times that might have appeared funny to some anonymous stranger.

          I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to think that while the child's parents feel grief and sorrow that their lovely child is suffering from such a serious illness, at the same time, when the doctor told them what medication they would be giving him, that they might have thought it was funny.

          I understand and respect your opinions on the matter. No one can argue that in a wealthy nation, no child should be deprived of life saving medication. I do think though, that wishing for stories like this to not feed the piranha pool is like wishing for the elimination of jealousy or greed. They are aspects of human nature that would take a monumental shift to change.

          Thanks for your comment.
    • EetFuk, on 03/11/2008, -2/+0The joke is that he's being fed viagra which is a medicine used to treat impotence.
    • sgtpppr, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1And how is crying over it or 'feeling sorry for him' doing anything to make him better? I don't think anyone here is 'making fun of him' in a malicious way.
    • bossm4n, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Clearly you have never heard the old adage, "Laughter is the best medicine". Sometimes we need to laugh, even at our own pain to keep sane.
  • lukeduke, on 03/11/2008, -8/+14He'll be able to ring the doorbell with his hands tied behind his back
  • londubh, on 03/11/2008, -7/+3If you have an erection lasting for more than four hours, please seek medical attention. Naughty nurses are the best.
  • brokencode, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2At the pharmacy I work at, we call viagra a vitamin.
  • gamgee911, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2Viva Viagra!
    • vbullinger, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Those commercials really piss me off. I change the channel when they come on, covering my ears and going "la la la la la" the whole time.
    • pardonmedoug, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1sheep
  • protossss, on 03/11/2008, -5/+5Daily Mail - great fiction at news stands daily. Worse than The Sun, which is astonishing really.
    • cjvos1, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3At least they haven't started digging stories from the Daily Express yet. Worse than both of those in my opinion.
  • yngtimmy, on 03/11/2008, -8/+10Welcome to the future in the USA if Universal Healthcare comes around. Government choosing to cut funding for some drug because its too expensive.
    • mbthompson, on 03/11/2008, -6/+7I don't know why you're getting dugg down. The amount of willful ignorance on digg is obscene.
    • pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -2/+6as opposed to a private company denying treatment outright to increase profits? do you realize that viagra was designed to treat high blood pressure?
      • salinemist, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3Good point. Viagra was designed to make a profit and now it's saving this kid's life. Capitalism is beautiful.
    • leoedin, on 03/11/2008, -4/+4Rather than your insurance company not funding a drug because it is too expensive? Universal healthcare is the only solution.
    • colonelbuckshot, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4I'm British and I can tell you that unfortunately this kind of thing happens all the time. The NHS is super-expensive, super-inefficient and super-bureaucratic.
    • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3Yea and since the government is taxing people to death to pay for the health care people won't even be able to afford to buy it on their own where as now some may have that ability.All I know is that right now I can afford to pay for my medical care but if we had government sponsored health care I would be paying more for less health care. How does that make an sense.
      Yes I can feel sorry for this kid but how is that my problem and if I lived in the UK why should it be my problem.
      I'm sorry for the people in the UK that are nothing but slaves to this type of health care system.
      • mbthompson, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Exactly! The government needs to stop wasting everyone's time and more importantly MONEY with medicaid/medicare and social security. The folks who are in their mid twenties to early thirties won't see but a dime of that money, but they'll sure pay out dearly until then.
  • amightywind, on 03/11/2008, -5/+1What do they do about this poor chap's perpetual erection?
  • medina8304, on 03/11/2008, -0/+13I believe this story, no matter how shaky the site that it came from. My wife passed away from Pulmonary Hypertension and one of the treatments discussed was putting her on a regimen of Viagra, however it was in the experimental stages as a treatment for PH so no insurance would pay for it and her condition was far to advanced for any treatments that would have made a real difference. My heart goes out to the family of that child.
    • loquax, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3My wife's mother also has Primary Pulmonary Hypertension. Thank God they caught it in time. She is on a mixture of Viagra, Cialis (I think) , and a nasty drug that has to be pumped in using an insulin pump. She is living a full life, but the drug regimen is difficult and the pump is painful.
      It is ironic than many of the people who suffer from this disease (but not all) were damaged by Phen-Phen and Redux. I hope that this cycle of one drug causing damage and another being used to treat the damage is not a model for the future of the pharmacy industry.
    • Sean42, on 03/11/2008, -0/+6Sorry.
  • ChairShot83, on 03/11/2008, -5/+6It's gunna be a bitch to potty train this poor guy.
  • manbear, on 03/11/2008, -5/+2junior high is gonna suck for this kid, he will be walkin around with a puptent all the time!
  • JoshuaLowe, on 03/11/2008, -4/+27Wait a second, Michael Moore told me that anyone can get any prescription drugs they need for free in the UK. And that there are no shortages of available, competent health care in the UK. Did Michael Moore lie to me?????
  • EatChex89, on 03/11/2008, -6/+1Does he have a constant stiffy?
  • mbthompson, on 03/11/2008, -7/+13And people want socialized medicine in the U.S? This is exactly what happens.
    • cjvos1, on 03/11/2008, -8/+9You're a moron. Sorry, but I would take the British system ANY day over the American equivalent.
      • sanotaan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+7such strong words over what seems to be little difference. here, the insurance companies limit payment. there, the government limits payment.
      • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -3/+4You could always move. Here in the US there is a constitution argument to be made against government health care. All I know is I will not be a slave to the US government if they institute any socialized medicine here. I already pay for health care on my own and I refuse to pay for someone who can't afford their own. I am not a slave. Slavery ended years ago and forcing people to pay for socialized programs makes them a slave to the government.
        • Chaoticfist, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4No it makes you a selfish *****. Its not like you are paying tons of cash. You get taxed for it. I am happy to help some old man get his meds through my taxes because one day i will be the old man needing help paying for my meds. Give a little and you get a little. Socialized Health care may be perfect but it beats the American system any day.
        • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2@Chaoticfist:
          Yes I am a selfish ***** if you like. I already save for my future and if you choose not to or can't that is not my fault or problem. Forcing me to do so is wrong and I am willing to fight to stop it if I need to here in the US. I don't expect anybody to pay for me and I don't want to pay for anybody. If you want to help people by all means do so but don't make me into some slave for you ideas. I am sure all government tax collectors accept private checks, why don't you just write one out while your at it.
          If people want to live in a socialized system then by all means move to Europe and have fun. Try to force this country (USA) into then expect a fight.........I already mock people on welfare and food stamps and make sure I rat out anybody abusing these stupid socialized systems.
    • Sean42, on 03/11/2008, -1/+11Since nobody in this country is denied treatment for anything, your counterpoint is well reasoned.

      /sarcasm
      • mbthompson, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2You're right, no one is denied treatment as long as they have the funds to pay for such treatment. In the cases where they do not have the funds, there are numerous charities, not to mention hospitals that will write off the entire bill. How do I know? My sister had cancer, did not have the funds for all the treatment, and a Catholic charities hospital footed the bill. Now, care to try again without the mindless sarcasm tags?
        • Thuktun, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Hello, the boy in the story may be denied treatment due to the government not paying for the more expensive treatment. If the boy's parents could afford the medication, he'd have it.

          There is NO difference here.
    • leoedin, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3Socialised medicine works. I guess your telling me that your insurance company would instantly pay for this drug indefinitely? It'd probably write it off as "experimental treatment" and ignore you completely. Far fewer people are left behind than the NHS than the US health system, and one example isn't going to change that.
      • arthurdent3, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4I don't care if the end justify the means. Forcing me into slavery to help pay for all the havenots is not what I am willing to do and I am willing to fight if I have to to stop it from happening here in the US. I already inundate my representatives to not take this on and if that fails, I only have one option left.
        You people seem to think its ok for hard working people to pay for your lazy asses but I do not. I am sick and tired of the socialization creep here in the US.
        • directrix13, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1Stop with the slavery B.S. You already pay taxes, you would be no more "a slave" for having to pay more taxes for that social program. Secondly, I don't know whether socialized health care is right or wrong. But I would think a massive group plan that has every person in the US, would be cheaper than the current fragmented mess. Also if it had the power to regulate prices of medicines and treatments and reign in on the current artificial limitations on the number of physicians allowed in healthcare would probably be cheaper anyways. Regardless, you wouldn't be paying for everyone else's lazy asses. Your lazy ass would be included too, and I don't care how awesome a financial planner you are, you have not planned for all the expensive medical crap that could happen to anybody at anytime.
      • tony23, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Problem is, it's more than one example. Rationing of care is pretty much guaranteed under any socialized system. At least in the US, you have multiple options - including just paying for it yourself (I pay cash for my blood pressure medicine, and it's worth every penny) - is that an option in the UK?
        • leoedin, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Yes, actually. If you obtain a private prescription from a doctor, you can pay cash for any medication you want to. Why, I don't know, but you can.

          And, you can have private health insurance, you can use private hospitals. Most people don't, because they don't need to.

          I urge all anti-universal healthcare advocates to read this somethingawful thread:

          http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?th ...
  • brextastic, on 03/11/2008, -5/+5now kids will have more of a reason to butcher his name, sherWOOD
    • Jeffler, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1Sherwood makes awesome hockey sticks, and is the last name of a nice kid, stop tainting the name.
    • ChiRolla, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1ha. I get it. Wood. Funny.
  • choppergirl, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0Another Austin Powers in the making... this is how Austin Powers got his mojo... look at his teeth and tell me I'm wrong??? Just add the glasses, the 60's era colored clothing, and the British sportscar with a Union Jack on it.
    • jhuebel, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Wow, you've uncovered the conspiracy! Austin Powers is in fact an Viagra addict, those were his real teeth and mojo is a tangible object. /sarcasm
  • Spastastic, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3I don't know why this is somewhat shocking to people. I don't know if this is mentioned in the article however if you don't know many drugs are multipurpose drugs. They are developed for a specific purpose but also found to achieve other goals. In the case of viagra that is highly the case. The medicine was originally developed for the exact problem the boy has however it was found to be more effective for erectile dysfuntion so it was marketed under that purpose however is still used for PH
    • MrSir, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1yep pretty much, except I believe it was first in developed for high blood pressure in general. it's now marketed under the name Revatio for that, the same name on the box the kid is holding, so technically it's not Viagra, just like not all acetaminophen is Tylenol. The government healthcare is another thing I have strong feelings on, but maybe some other time.
  • katorga, on 03/11/2008, -4/+3"Government's Drug Rationing Body" That says it all. Welcome to the NHS.
  • Metasquares, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but Viagra doesn't cause erections without some form of sexual arousal.
    • BradBrown, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3Oh sweet Jesus how wrong you are. The year was 1997. I decided to surprise the new girlfriend by trying Viagra. 8 hours later, when I left her apartment in the morning, I still had an erection. 30 minutes later, when pumping gas, I still had an erection [I untucked my shirt, just like I did in high school]; in no way was I aroused by the gas pump or nearby Camaro. By lunch, the erection was gone - I never did consult a doctor and I never did try that stunt again. Don't do it kids, it'll only bring heartache and painful 18 hour erections.
  • stripwire, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1sucks, I hope the little champ is doing better.
  • tibbon, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2It's good to see he's keeping UP the fight. So HARD as a small child to have something for so LONG like that.
  • niteryder007, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5Horrible for the family and child.. It's obvious that the Digg users making stupid-ass comments at the young boys expense don't have children.
  • gregopals, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4SO much for Michael Moore's great health Utopia.
  • evilbob333, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3The funny part is that Viagra was originally developed to treat high blood pressure. When the side effects were observed, it was re-marketed as a happy-happy funtime pill. All that being said, this is a great example of the true cost of universal health-care, rationing.
  • ASLICE888, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1What an amazing story.
  • techwrekfix, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Great, just what I needed. Some else in the world to piss me off.
  • czeman, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Kept him up, eh?
  • BrittanyLion, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0No more jokes! this kid is a real trooper.
  • Quaoar, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Viagra (sildenafil citrate) was found to have erectile properties by accident when it was given to men for pulmonary hypertension. It has been used for many years to control pulmonary hypertension in newborns, predating by years its use under the Viagra label.
  • nickbetzold, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Put the kid on a vegan diet, supplementing B12, and his blood pressure will drop. For the science and specific protocol recommendations, contact Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn at the Cleveland Clinic.
    • tkilgore04, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Vegan ism, oh isn't that where you can't eat anything with a shadow? But seriously I feel bad for the inhumane practices in the meat industry.
    • Jeffler, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Quiet Mr. Esselstyn!
    • tiedyeman, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0Wonderful, that way when he dies from his PULMONARY hypertension, he'll have an arterial blood pressure that is well within normal limits. This is something completely different than the high blood pressure that your fat parents have.
  • tkilgore04, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I recommend a high dose of fish and chips for that cholesterol.
  • gfreeman223, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Sad.

    Medicines are letting people who would normally die of natural causes live... at what point do we draw the line? If this kids parents are rich, he will be fine.
  • cl2yp71c, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1When he becomes older, walking around with a boner all the time won't be too much of a compliment.
  • kdavid, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I can't wait for Hillary or Borat Hussein Osama to get us some FREE (confiscatory taxes) health care (rationing).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.