European Court of "Human Rights" rules against parents of a terminally ill child

[Shinra1]

Because fuck Charlie and his slim chance of survival. The court decided Charlie must die with dignity, and die he shall.

What message is the court sending to parents? Well, if you have a choice between trying everything in your power to save your child, or shooting him in the head, the 2nd option will not waste his time, and provide some quick dignity along the way. I mean, let's face it, the child would die in any case, you just saved him at least 50 years of his life.

I spit on their malthusian argument, and their wicked appeals to dignity. The judges who reached such degenerate decision deserve to be hanged.

Exactly, I'm glad that someone else in this thread has their thinking cap firmly placed on their head.

[Shinra1]

The European Court of Human Rights is not the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...f_Human_Rights

You need to read your source. All the EU states are members of council of Europe and therefore they have signed the human rights convention so yes it is absolutely an extension of Europe's meddling.

[Zantos]

Because fuck Charlie and his slim chance of survival. The court decided Charlie must die with dignity, and die he shall.

The disease is Terminal. Terminal meaning that he WILL die from it. It's not if, its When. The only way to change that would be to Cure it, which there is None of for this disease. So no, there isn't even a slim chance. There is literally zero chance.

That is not even taking into account that you can Not reverse the brain damage done fully. Those who rebound from brain damage are a Very rare case and they never Fully recover. The damage is done and even IF, by some miracle, he suddenly was cured, his quality of life would be moot. He would be confined to iron lungs and def. He would Barely understand anything, if at all and would barely be able to see.

The courts did the right thing. I get that they don't want to see their baby die, but there should be a limit to how much Pain and Suffering they willingly put him through just to continue prolonging it with Zero hope for a cure. That is just sadistic.

[Deleted]

Good. No one should prolong the suffering of a baby like this just because of selfishness. There is no treatment and he lives because he's hooked to machines, the doctors say there's no hope. Why prolong the inevitable?

[Lahis]

Because fuck Charlie and his slim chance of survival. The court decided Charlie must die with dignity, and die he shall.

What message is the court sending to parents? Well, if you have a choice between trying everything in your power to save your child, or shooting him in the head, the 2nd option will not waste his time, and provide some quick dignity along the way. I mean, let's face it, the child would die in any case, you just saved him at least 50 years of his life.

I spit on their malthusian argument, and their wicked appeals to dignity. The judges who reached such degenerate decision deserve to be hanged.

Except that there was no chances of survival.

And no, I don't mean that "everyone will eventually die."

[Shadowmelded]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40423371

Trip to the USA for possible treatment denied because reasons. The EU can now decide who lives and who dies.

This has to be one of the dumbest anti-EU threads in a while. You do realize the European Court of Human Rights upheld the British Court's rulings right?

[Lahis]

You need to read your source. All the EU states are members of council of Europe and therefore they have signed the human rights convention so yes it is absolutely an extension of Europe's meddling.

So I suppose you don't support human rights? Seems like you have teh right Prime Minister then.

[Shinra1]

So I suppose you don't support human rights? Seems like you have teh right Prime Minister then.

Their argument is that he is brain dead so being kept alive by a ventilator is not dignified and putting him in pain. How is he in pain if he is brain dead? What harm does it do to let his parents take him for this experimental treatment even if its not going to work. The state should not decide who dies or who lives.

[Tomyris]

So wasn't enough that this baby is going through immense suffering, now he is used for bullshit agenda too? Go cool off, burn an EU flag or something. Oh wait...

[Lahis]

Their argument is that he is brain dead so being kept alive by a ventilator is not dignified and putting him in pain. How is he in pain if he is brain dead? What harm does it do to let his parents take him for this experimental treatment even if its not going to work. The state should not decide who dies or who lives.

And what good would keeping a braindead person alive bring? His parents would have a fancy doll they could play dress up with?

[Deleted]

Their argument is that he is brain dead so being kept alive by a ventilator is not dignified and putting him in pain. How is he in pain if he is brain dead? What harm does it do to let his parents take him for this experimental treatment even if its not going to work. The state should not decide who dies or who lives.

The state defends the rights of the child as well, there's laws in every country in the world that gives the right to the government to overrule the wishes and desires of the parent if it harms the child, or hurts the child in the long run, or worsens their quality of life. The experimental procedure is done nowhere in the world besides the USA, because it's proven to ineffective and more harmful to the child. That's the reason the 2 medical boards before the EU decided to not give the green light, the EU court of human rights agreed with that after their own review through their own medical board.

I advise you to go research into his brain damage, and the procedure, you'll know well enough nothing good will come from it.

[lonely zergling]

This was the right decision. Parents should be sued for wanting the child to suffer needlessly.

[Deleted]

TLDR:

1)European Human rights court upholds British Courts decision. Idiots unable to tell the difference between the EU and ECHR and start talking about Brexit.
2)Internet expert, thinks it knows more then trained and educated specialists, calls out specialist for "doesn't know what he's talking about"
3) OP had title changed because he is biased.

[Shinra1]

The state defends the rights of the child as well, there's laws in every country in the world that gives the right to the government to overrule the wishes and desires of the parent if it harms the child, or hurts the child in the long run, or worsens their quality of life. The experimental procedure is done nowhere in the world besides the USA, because it's proven to ineffective and more harmful to the child. That's the reason the 2 medical boards before the EU decided to not give the green light, the EU court of human rights agreed with that after their own review through their own medical board.

I advise you to go research into his brain damage, and the procedure, you'll know well enough nothing good will come from it.

Every parent should have the rights to choose their child's care. The rights as a parent have completely been abolished in this case it's disgusting!

This case reeks of classism. Had the parents been wealthy and the connections to fight this all the way they would have had a better chance of winning this case.

Had the parents gone private health care initially instead of a standard NHS hospital there are a lot of people saying that Charlie would have been flying to America to get the treatment months ago.

[Deleted]

Every parent should have the rights to choose their child's care. The rights as a parent have completely been abolished in this case it's disgusting!

So parents should be able to choose a witch doctor for their child when he has a serious condition treatable by modern medical science?

No.

[Shinra1]

So parents should be able to choose a witch doctor for their child when he has a serious condition treatable by modern medical science?

No.

Apples and oranges.

[Deleted]

Apples and oranges.

You said they should be able to choose the type of care their child receives.

That opens the floodgates to all kinds of alternative medicine which isn't in the best interests of the child.

[Thepersona]

And what good would keeping a braindead person alive bring? His parents would have a fancy doll they could play dress up with?

A brain dead person is a dead one though. Has the kid been diagnosed with brain death?

- - - Updated - - -

Every parent should have the rights to choose their child's care. The rights as a parent have completely been abolished in this case it's disgusting!
.

No. Just no
You should do only medical treatment that has been proven to work, and if you want to endure any clinical trial, do so willingly.
The parents should have no say about the vaccinations of a child, and they should be sued if they choose to treat them with alternative medicine, instead of proven practices (of any disease that has a cure)

[Lollis]

The specialist doesn't know what he's talking about. The church needs to get involved.

Do I need say more?

[Deleted]

And what good would keeping a braindead person alive bring?

Amusing threads on here?