‘Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must get 2nd opinion in New York’!Not AGAIN?

[Ronzkie23]

---

MANILA, Philippines—The cardiologist who said that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had a “life-threatening” blockage in her neck has advised the Pampanga representative to seek a second opinion from a specialist in New York, according to Arroyo ally, Quezon Rep. Danilo Suarez.

Dr. Roberto Anastacio “[insisted] that she get a second opinion, but not here,” said Suarez, who visited Arroyo at Makati Medical Center.

Arroyo was taken to MMC on Monday for an examination after the titanium plate supporting her cervical spine was dislocated.

In an Aug. 11 medical bulletin issued by MMC, Anastacio said the displaced titanium plate was “a serious factor in the mechanism of breathing and subsequent blood circulation, which may lead to sudden death.”

The cardiologist also said Arroyo was suffering from a “30 to 40 percent” obstruction in her right coronary artery and left descending artery.

Anastacio suggested in the Aug. 11 bulletin that Arroyo consider his “serious suggestion of a reinvestigation and second opinion.”

According to Suarez, Anastacio had suggested that Arroyo get a second opinion from a “neurocervical” doctor, of which there is none available in the Philippines.

“It should be a surgeon who does this every day,” he quoted the doctor as saying.

Anastacio canvassed specialists abroad who could examine the former president and suggested a doctor in New York, said Suarez.

The congressman on Tuesday said a lump was detected in the former president’s left breast after an examination. He did not provide details.

He said Arroyo had lost so much weight and was now down to 91 pounds.

She is able to move around her hospital room while hooked up to an IV drip, he said.

Suarez said Arroyo should be given a chance to seek treatment in other countries.

“When we’re talking of life and death, all leeway should be given to a person,” he said.

But he acknowledged that the hold-departure order issued against Arroyo over pending cases of graft, plunder and electoral sabotage would be a problem.

Arroyo’s attempt to leave the country for treatment last November—backed by a Supreme Court ruling lifting the watchlist order against her—was thwarted by immigration officials on orders of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima in a dramatic airport showdown.

But under the rules, an accused in a criminal case is allowed to file a motion seeking court permission to travel abroad for a specific period. It is up to the court to determine if the reason given is compelling enough to allow the accused to leave the country temporarily.

The former president last year underwent three surgeries in her cervical spine to deal with severe pain in her upper limbs caused by compressed nerves in her neck. Surgeons placed a titanium plate on her spine.

Just three days after her release from detention early this month, Arroyo was rushed to the hospital after choking on a piece of melon. Arroyo has extreme difficulty eating and swallowing even water, her doctor said.

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/250017/...on-in-new-york
Another Source: Arroyo ally: Doctor advised her to go abroad

NOT AGAIN??!!na unsa naman ni ui!!! Ngita jud paraan si Pandak bah.. Di gyud padala ni pandaka ni gusto jud mo lusot sa iya kaso dinhi Pinas!![/COLOR]

[r0mm3L]

kong masakiton ni sya wala pa man lage ni namatay hehe

[edgeknife]

nagpa sakit sakit kunohay si GMA... pagka nalang!

[Vino Kid]

cge lang sakit.... masamang damo dugay mamatay.... in4t4y

[carmicael]

what then is the morally safer choice?
[1]allow her to leave and maybe, just maybe, she would get a cure for a condition which she may or may not have; but risk that she will seek political asylum and avoid to face charges for crimes which she may or may have not committed.
[2]keep her grounded to make sure she does not escape to let her face charges for the crimes which she may or may have not committed; but risk that she could die with her blood in our hands.

[monroy]

what then is the morally safer choice?
[1]allow her to leave and maybe, just maybe, she would get a cure for a condition which she may or may not have; but risk that she will seek political asylum and avoid to face charges for crimes which she may or may have not committed.
[2]keep her grounded to make sure she does not escape to let her face charges for the crimes which she may or may have not committed; but risk that she could die with her blood in our hands.

That's a false presumption that our doctors are no good, her illness is real and evidence of her guilt is weak.

[diamonds]

good luck CGMA... lain napud ning drama2x ai.

[salbahis]

america? we have extradition sa US, kung sa country nga walay extradition then dili... if moikyas siya during the trip to US that would signify guilty siya... mas modako ang kaso niya...

[carmicael]

1. You made a false presumption in option 2 that our doctors are incompetent and foreign doctors are the best.

no assumption of that in anywhere. please take note of the word "maybe". webster dictionary defines "maybe" as "possibly but not certainly".
by your term "false presumption" it is assumed that the opposite is therefore "true presumption". therefore, by saying that "maybe our doctors are not the best" is a "false presumption", then the "true presumption", therefore, is that "our doctors are the best". did i understand you correctly sir?

2. You made a false presumption in option 1 that her illness is real and that evidence of her guilt is weak.

please refer to my statement:

...
[2]keep her grounded to make sure she does not escape to let her face charges for the crimes which she may or may have not committed; but risk that she could die with her blood in our hands.

on her illness is real: the word "could", according to webster's dictionary means "be made possible or probable by circumstances". also, please refer to my option [1]. i have said "a condition which she may or may not have".

on the evidence of her guilt is weak: the word "may" is "used to indicate possibility or probability". so, there is really no presumption of anything. would you agree with me sir?

the question i presented in my previous post was merely to ask people on what is their stand on the morality of both options.

[monroy]

no assumption of that in anywhere. please take note of the word "maybe". webster dictionary defines "maybe" as "possibly but not certainly".
by your term "false presumption" it is assumed that the opposite is therefore "true presumption". therefore, by saying that "maybe our doctors are not the best" is a "false presumption", then the "true presumption", therefore, is that "our doctors are the best". did i understand you correctly sir?

You're right, you didn't make any presumptions in your options but they require the people you are asking to make presumptions that nobody can be sure are right so it's impossible to say which of the two options is "morally safer".


A just result requires an answer to a more definitive question that establishes which choice is moral and not merely which choice is more likely to be moral (or in your words "morally safer"). The question you asked and the options you provided won't trigger an answer that has any meaning because the person would have to make a judgment call based on possibilities rather than facts.