Inactive Gwen Hartley & The Hartley Hooligans - Attention Seeking Horrorshow Mom of Two Dead Gremlins & Finally Free Human Son

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marinol is pure THC in a sesame oil suspension. I knew a guy who was prescribed it for nausea and wasting during chemo. He took one pill and ended up staring wildly around in what was apparently pure existential terror, ending up having to be talked down from some kind of upsetting trip. This is only noteworthy because he'd been a cannabis legalization activist since the eighties and smoked lots of weed, all the time, not limited to his own.

But since we're talking about the remaining potato, it can't possibly make anything any worse.

It's what I said mixed results. Saw some side effects, but not to that extent.

Didn't mean to say Marinol for the potato, Marinol and prescription cannabis and CBD are different from from my understanding. CBD is not psychoactive.
 
Not quite. There is a good reason why drugs such as Marinol exist.

My mom took marinol and it made her extremely sick. So my opinion of that stuff is bad. Although one person's reaction isn't everyone's reaction. But she hated it as much as morphine.

Would God disprove of just letting "children" like these die? So say you have a baby that struggles less to live than life requires. And you just don't struggle to keep it alive either... so it dies. Is this murder in a legal or even philosophical way?

:thinking:

Doesn't Jesus want the little children to come to him? Why not hasten the trip by stopping the fruitless measures?

Well in the wild if lil' junior bunny isn't moving and/or is horrifically deformed you just push him aside or eat him and focus on his healthy siblings. Humans will resuscitate the little flesh goblin and attempt to treat it like a normal child even when all it does is seize all day. The only good thing is that most likely offspring that bad off will never have any children of their own. People were up in arms over that pillow angel controversy with Ashley X. But think of it this way, some perverted caregiver decides Ashley can't say no and is therefore easy pickins. And in nine months you have a baby. Look what happened to that woman in the coma recently. It happens, unfortunately.

There are all kinds of moral issues associated with the care of the severely disabled who cannot consent to treatment of any kind. Even if Lola was an adult she can't decide to have a DNR. It has to be decided for her. With infants they can't consent to any treatment, including DNRs. so you have to make the decision for them in terms of what is best. But feelings get in the way and that's why Claire lived as long as she did. I still cannot believe that Lola survived chickenpox and that awful rash. I think it's autoimmune and a bad sign. But she might live a few more years. I don't see her making it to Claire's age though. She looks really twisted and more fragile in every pic.

Lola's face screams "Kill me". Remember that horrifying baby from Eraserhead? Henry unwraps the bandages to find out that it's the only thing keeping the organs in. Then it finally dies. But you know the poor thing should have been allowed to die after birth just like Lola. Note that the Eraserhead baby also survived the pox.

I don't think there's anything all that wrong with letting the very seriously disabled die after birth. Lola level, cyclops babies, anencephaly. That sort of thing. But you wouldn't want to set a precedent for something like "my baby was born without arms/is deaf/blind ect... Let it die because I don't want it.".
 
I decided to check out if Gwen had decided to update her blog at all with Claire's death (nope) and came across her Pinterest. Aside from a huge number of vegan boards, she has a couple interesting ones like "books I want to read" where she lists, among motivational books, Fifty Shades of Grey with the comment "Mmmmmmm" on it (I get Gwen likes to share everything but this is her official Pinterest and it's not even like it's a book with good sex) and the book Lamb in Love where an older rich man falls madly in love with the sole caregiver of a special needs kid. Now I might be reading too much into this but the latter feels like a self-insert designed for Gwen, especially seeing the places she wants to visit in one of her boards.
More worryingly though is what's in her "healthy shit" board. Aside from the essential oils shit we all know, she has some pins on drinking raw milk, protecting against "mobile radiation" from laptops, tablets, phones, etc, and using essential oils as sunscreen (only one shown had the minimum requirement of 30 SPF). The first and last one make me worry for the kids. Is raw milk part of the reason for the "funny" diarrhea? How often do the kids get sunburns? You'd need a stupid amount of essential oils to sufficiently cover the skin on top of the fact that only one of the listed oils even had the proper SPF (and provided this isn't total bullshit).
Side note, Gwen seems to think she's a hip "gangsta" as she calls her house "the crib" and randomly adds the word "shit" to multiple board titles
In cases where the child is basically a vegetable there is an argument to be made that euthanasia should be legalized for cases like that. However Gwen would never do that. Also, honestly what I've seen from USA politics on simple abortions, I think it might be a while until there can be a proper debate on this issue but I think as populations get larger and these low percentage things happen more often it's a debate that's going to need to be had
 
Would God disprove of just letting "children" like these die? So say you have a baby that struggles less to live than life requires. And you just don't struggle to keep it alive either... so it dies. Is this murder in a legal or even philosophical way?

:thinking:
Mercy killing is considered murder in the US, whether directly or indirectly through denying them food and water. Even in the few states where euthanasia is legal it is prohibited because the disabled child can't consent to termination of care.

Legally it depends on the state in which the crime was committed. Some states have their own statute for assisted suicide while in others it falls under manslaughter.
 
My mom took marinol and it made her extremely sick. So my opinion of that stuff is bad. Although one person's reaction isn't everyone's reaction. But she hated it as much as morphine.



Doesn't Jesus want the little children to come to him? Why not hasten the trip by stopping the fruitless measures?

Well in the wild if lil' junior bunny isn't moving and/or is horrifically deformed you just push him aside or eat him and focus on his healthy siblings. Humans will resuscitate the little flesh goblin and attempt to treat it like a normal child even when all it does is seize all day. The only good thing is that most likely offspring that bad off will never have any children of their own. People were up in arms over that pillow angel controversy with Ashley X. But think of it this way, some perverted caregiver decides Ashley can't say no and is therefore easy pickins. And in nine months you have a baby. Look what happened to that woman in the coma recently. It happens, unfortunately.

There are all kinds of moral issues associated with the care of the severely disabled who cannot consent to treatment of any kind. Even if Lola was an adult she can't decide to have a DNR. It has to be decided for her. With infants they can't consent to any treatment, including DNRs. so you have to make the decision for them in terms of what is best. But feelings get in the way and that's why Claire lived as long as she did. I still cannot believe that Lola survived chickenpox and that awful rash. I think it's autoimmune and a bad sign. But she might live a few more years. I don't see her making it to Claire's age though. She looks really twisted and more fragile in every pic.

Lola's face screams "Kill me". Remember that horrifying baby from Eraserhead? Henry unwraps the bandages to find out that it's the only thing keeping the organs in. Then it finally dies. But you know the poor thing should have been allowed to die after birth just like Lola. Note that the Eraserhead baby also survived the pox.

I don't think there's anything all that wrong with letting the very seriously disabled die after birth. Lola level, cyclops babies, anencephaly. That sort of thing. But you wouldn't want to set a precedent for something like "my baby was born without arms/is deaf/blind ect... Let it die because I don't want it.".

Mercy killing is considered murder in the US, whether directly or indirectly through denying them food and water. Even in the few states where euthanasia is legal it is prohibited because the disabled child can't consent to termination of care.

Legally it depends on the state in which the crime was committed. Some states have their own statute for assisted suicide while in others it falls under manslaughter.

Wow. These are seriously pertinent answers to both the ethical/philosophical and the legal concerns to my question: Is letting these things die right in the eyes of God and man?

I wish I could rate you guys higher.

Dysomina, I don't know if you're religious but I think the Judeo-Christian God would be happy with that answer, other than that bunny comparison.

Philosophy Zombie, So if this lolcow mom would have let God take her potato babies it'd be illegal in most states?
 
I think if you eased the seizures, you could increase her quality of life. But her lack of regular brain patterns makes me wonder if a conventional method could work on her.
 
A child born with Cyclops or Anacephaly are not necessarily euthanized, but parents can decide to have comfort care only and withhold food and water if a child is born with a condition incompatible with life. It’s not true that it’s murder not to keep them alive. The medical staff will make sure it’s peaceful if they are hanging on too long, although they won’t outright kill them.

This type of birth defect is an incredibly rare event, and living with it for years is rarer, children like Jaxson Strong typically last days not years.

Unfortunately, in most cases, conditions are not so clear cut. Nobody knew what the Hartley girls had for a long time and there are only about five people who have it.While all kids with microcephaly are disabled, how much varies widely, some are talking and walking.

I think it’s best to err on the side of life when nobody knows. But ultimately, it should be the family’s decision as they are the people who will deal with it. Yes, taxpayer dollars are involved and I’m not a fan, however, in most of these cases it’s not for very long. Taxes go to lots I don’t like, and stepping into eauthasia may have consequences we don’t want. For example, I know somebody with a terminal cancer who has outlived his lifespan by 6 years, costing the insurance company millions. He’s in his 60s, which some might think too old to spend money on. Yet he’s happy and playing with grandkids, traveling. If money ever becomes the driving force in who lives and who dies, we are definitely going down a road we don’t want to, and which other countries are already doing by withholding treatment.

It’s good we’ve come a long way since we left babies in the forest, not bad.
 
Philosophy Zombie, So if this lolcow mom would have let God take her potato babies it'd be illegal in most states?
Since to my awareness the girls don't need any life support equipment to just continue existing and thus any "letting die" would be active euthanasia (short of maybe ignoring a fatal seizure), yes and she would go to prison.

Morality doesn't really figure into the law here. You can read about the Carol Carr case if you ever want to feel really sad for a few minutes. The judge admitted that Carr was a peculiar kind of hero for rescuing her children from the horror of late-stage Huntington's disease, but couldn't make an exception for her because of the legal precedent it would set.

There would probably be a grey area if Gwen could prove through fMRI that Lola literally lacks any kind of brain activity, but that's why she refuses to do any scans.
 
But you wouldn't want to set a precedent for something like "my baby was born without arms/is deaf/blind ect... Let it die because I don't want it.".

I think the clear difference here is that you can have any of the disorders you just named, and still have quality of life. (Yes, even people who hold a fork in their toes to eat.) That now seems widely known. An abandoned deaf or blind kid would be put into care, not tossed into some kind of horror house asylum (at least in developed countries). A FOAF adopted a baby who has a weird rare genetic disorder where her arms are fused permanently at 90 degrees; the birth mother made it a condition that the adoptive one be in the delivery room, because she refused to even hold bb after giving birth. (Kiddo is now in second grade, takes gymnastics and dance, and is a holy terror. But her parents love her.)

So some people are always going to nope out of raising a disabled kid, and frankly, if they’re going to have that attitude, they shouldn’t. But in the US at least, with some states trying to forbid abortion after six weeks (before many women know they’re pregnant), I don’t think we’re in danger of hospitals agreeing to withhold food from a deaf baby.
 
A child born with Cyclops or Anacephaly are not necessarily euthanized, but parents can decide to have comfort care only and withhold food and water if a child is born with a condition incompatible with life. It’s not true that it’s murder not to keep them alive. The medical staff will make sure it’s peaceful if they are hanging on too long, although they won’t outright kill them.

This type of birth defect is an incredibly rare event, and living with it for years is rarer, children like Jaxson Strong typically last days not years.

Unfortunately, in most cases, conditions are not so clear cut. Nobody knew what the Hartley girls had for a long time and there are only about five people who have it.While all kids with microcephaly are disabled, how much varies widely, some are talking and walking.

I think it’s best to err on the side of life when nobody knows. But ultimately, it should be the family’s decision as they are the people who will deal with it. Yes, taxpayer dollars are involved and I’m not a fan, however, in most of these cases it’s not for very long. Taxes go to lots I don’t like, and stepping into eauthasia may have consequences we don’t want. For example, I know somebody with a terminal cancer who has outlived his lifespan by 6 years, costing the insurance company millions. He’s in his 60s, which some might think too old to spend money on. Yet he’s happy and playing with grandkids, traveling. If money ever becomes the driving force in who lives and who dies, we are definitely going down a road we don’t want to, and which other countries are already doing by withholding treatment.

It’s good we’ve come a long way since we left babies in the forest, not bad.

Do we know if the lolcow mom had the option to euthanize the hooligans?

Since to my awareness the girls don't need any life support equipment to just continue existing and thus any "letting die" would be active euthanasia (short of maybe ignoring a fatal seizure), yes and she would go to prison.

Morality doesn't really figure into the law here. You can read about the Carol Carr case if you ever want to feel really sad for a few minutes. The judge admitted that Carr was a peculiar kind of hero for rescuing her children from the horror of late-stage Huntington's disease, but couldn't make an exception for her because of the legal precedent it would set.

There would probably be a grey area if Gwen could prove through fMRI that Lola literally lacks any kind of brain activity, but that's why she refuses to do any scans.

Wow, that've very unsettling in a deeply visceral way. The Carr woman watched her entire family slowly die miserably. This tormented soul clearly only cared to end the suffering of her remaining children. However, I understand how it can be construe as murder.

Perhaps my question should have made the distinction of euthanasia. Did the lolcow mom at hand have the opportunity to euthanize the hooligans? If she didn't have a chose in the matter than this woman is really just making the best of a bad situation.
 
Do we know if the lolcow mom had the option to euthanize the hooligans?
I'm sure the option was presented to her, at least with Claire. But this is the woman who writes nasty little letters to her doctor every year saying "My girls are still alive"...

...wonder if she's going to write one this year.
 

I wonder how vindictive those letters really are. What I was getting at is that if the mom was legally required to care for something that arguably isn't capable of caring if it's even alive or dead, then I feel for her. She'd really just be trying to make the best of a bad situation at that point.

I admittedly don't know many of the mom's lolcow antics though... I'm also 12.
 
Last edited:
24CCA6CA-551C-4EF8-B751-333D20BD0321.png
The teeth.
 
I decided to check out if Gwen had decided to update her blog at all with Claire's death (nope) and came across her Pinterest. Aside from a huge number of vegan boards, she has a couple interesting ones like "books I want to read" where she lists, among motivational books, Fifty Shades of Grey with the comment "Mmmmmmm" on it (I get Gwen likes to share everything but this is her official Pinterest and it's not even like it's a book with good sex) and the book Lamb in Love where an older rich man falls madly in love with the sole caregiver of a special needs kid. Now I might be reading too much into this but the latter feels like a self-insert designed for Gwen, especially seeing the places she wants to visit in one of her boards.
More worryingly though is what's in her "healthy shit" board. Aside from the essential oils shit we all know, she has some pins on drinking raw tard cum, protecting against "mobile radiation" from laptops, tablets, phones, etc, and using essential oils as sunscreen (only one shown had the minimum requirement of 30 SPF). The first and last one make me worry for the kids. Is raw tard cum part of the reason for the "funny" diarrhea? How often do the kids get sunburns? You'd need a stupid amount of essential oils to sufficiently cover the skin on top of the fact that only one of the listed oils even had the proper SPF (and provided this isn't total bullshit).
Side note, Gwen seems to think she's a hip "gangsta" as she calls her house "the crib" and randomly adds the word "shit" to multiple board titles
In cases where the child is basically a vegetable there is an argument to be made that euthanasia should be legalized for cases like that. However Gwen would never do that. Also, honestly what I've seen from USA politics on simple abortions, I think it might be a while until there can be a proper debate on this issue but I think as populations get larger and these low percentage things happen more often it's a debate that's going to need to be had

You'd think that sunscreen for babies would be mild enough for the potatoes. But no, we have to go granola mama full stop. Some essential oils can cause skin irritation. But it's all natural so it's all good.:roll:

I wonder if Gwen knows that Fifty Shades of Grey is just bad Twilight fanfiction with Edward and Bella's names changed and the vampirism taken out? I've read excerpts and it was ff.net levels of bad. It's like a 16 year old's idea of fetishes and erotica.:lol:

As for the raw milk, it's very possible that it's causing the diarrhea or at least making it worse. I think the potatoes would have been shit fountains regardless because they are not sentient and therefore cannot consciously control their bowels. But add in raw milk and it becomes much worse. From Google:

Raw milk is milk from any animal that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry harmful bacteria and other germs that can make you very sick or kill you. ... Getting sick from raw milk can mean many days of diarrhea, stomach cramping, and vomiting.

https://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm079516.htm

Milk and milk products provide a wealth of nutrition benefits. But raw milk, i.e., unpasteurized milk, can harbor dangerous microorganisms that can pose serious health risks to you and your family.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1993 through 2012, there were 127 outbreaks linked to raw milk or raw milk products like ice cream, soft cheese, or yogurt. They resulted in 1,909 illnesses and 144 hospitalizations. CDC points out that most foodborne illnesses are not a part of recognized outbreaks, and for every illness reported, many others occur.

Raw milk is milk from cows, sheep, and goats — or any other animal — that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Campylobacter, and others that cause foodborne illness, often called “food poisoning.”

These bacteria can seriously injure the health of anyone who drinks raw milk or eats products made from raw milk. However, the bacteria in raw milk can be especially dangerous to people with weakened immune systems (such as transplant patients and individuals with HIV/AIDS, cancer, and diabetes), children, older adults, and pregnant women.
In fact, CDC finds that foodborne illness from raw milk especially affects children and teenagers.

Yay word filter.:roll:

Now the potatoes are given goat milk because it's easier on some people. But the fact remains that it is still raw. So imagine severely disabled children with constant diarrhea and the dehydration and GI trauma it's causing.

Now some people swear by raw goat milk formula. And the Amish dairy stand I went to at the Reading Terminal Market said that it was mainly sold to mothers for their babies. In Pennsylvania it is legal to sell raw milk on the retail level. Although I don't see it at places like Walmart it is not that hard to find being sold if you know where to look. I tried raw goat milk once. It tasted fine and I was fine. But it was experimental and I won't do it again. However, I am an adult and understand the risks involved. Children, especially ones like the potatoes, cannot make those decisions for themselves.

As I've stated before in the Anna Johnson thread, Amish dairy farmers make a mint off of people like Gwen. Crazy granola mamas who go gaga over raw milk, essential oils and organic everything like it's a panacea for everything under the sun.

https://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005192

Gwen is in Kansas, right? Raw milk is not available at retail in Kansas. But it can be bought on site at farms, which is likely how Gwennie gets it.

On-farm sale of raw milk is allowed. "Raw milk bacterial count < 100K/mL. Kan. Admin. Regs. 4-7-6. Farm sales of raw milk may not be promoted beyond sign on premises, which must identify milk as raw."

So unless you are looking for it you won't find it. People that buy meat eggs and dairy directly from farms probably spread the word to interested parties. But it's not like here in Pennsylvania where you are permitted to take your raw milk to market and sell it the same as you would any other product. You've got to drive out to the farm yourself to get the raw milk. I sure hope that Gwen didn't take her potatoes to the farm to pet the goats. That's not sanitary or safe for severely disabled immune-comprimised children.

Now I don't think that raw milk killed Claire. But the constant diarrhea and the threat of getting a nasty illness from the bacteria couldn't have been helpful. That stuff was going right into her feeding tube.

I still don't understand why, with their GI issues, that they weren't on plant based milk instead. I'd think that going dairy free would be the safest bet. But Gwen always knows best.
 
Do we know if the lolcow mom had the option to euthanize the hooligans?

I've always thought this is exactly why the first doctor told her that the baby she'd had wouldn't even live a year. He probably was well aware there was a possibility of "life" beyond that, but that it'd be such a torturous mindfuck for any normal parent that it was worse to contemplate than a dead baby. By telling her she'd only be taking away a maximum of a year of life from a dying child if she chose to just give it comfort care, he was trying to ease her mental burden. He probably never guessed that this gentler way of helping a mom accept removal of nutrition from her potatokid would lead to her proudest moment of each year, writing him about how the vegetables were still growing down at the farm.
 
I've always thought this is exactly why the first doctor told her that the baby she'd had wouldn't even live a year. He probably was well aware there was a possibility of "life" beyond that, but that it'd be such a torturous mindfuck for any normal parent that it was worse to contemplate than a dead baby. By telling her she'd only be taking away a maximum of a year of life from a dying child if she chose to just give it comfort care, he was trying to ease her mental burden. He probably never guessed that this gentler way of helping a mom accept removal of nutrition from her potatokid would lead to her proudest moment of each year, writing him about how the vegetables were still growing down at the farm.

I very much agree with that hypothesis. I've always suspected that doctors do indeed intentionally offer exceptionally short life expectancies in situations like this, and even in cases with more capable invalid babies. That's the doctor doing the humane thing in their own eyes and offering you the chance to give the baby back to God. A week later you call emergency services to report your baby just "stopping breathing" and no one thinks twice because the doctor foretold this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back