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

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Truth : You got your ass blasted and you decided to invoke nazis, even though euthanasia was pretty high on Nazi's list of societal positives.

Truth: People have been bringing up experimenting on the boy regardless of any possible suffering it might cause him. Mengele is an obvious reference.

Also, this isn't euthanasia. It's more akin to a DNR.

[vhatever]

Truth: People have been bringing up experimenting on the boy regardless of any possible suffering it might cause him. Melange is an obvious reference.

Also, this isn't euthanasia. It's more akin to a DNR.

Get ass blasted. Unable to formulate a rational response, invoke nazis while acting like one/supporting their p[olicies, Then keep trash posting as if you can't realize the irony.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Get ass blasted. Unable to formulate a rational response, invoke nazis while acting like one/supporting their p[olicies, Then keep trash posting as if you can't realize the irony.

"Ass Blasted" by what? You haven't refuted anything I've said. You tried to reverse my Mengele argument and failed spectacularly doing so.

Mengele did perform human experiments with regard for the patient...which is exactly what some people here (including yourself) have started to argue. Keep the boy suffering if it gives you a few more data points.

Even if this experimental treatment worked perfectly ...it would only stop the progress of the decay... it can't reverse the damage already done. Charlie would live the rest of his life on a ventilator, mostly blind, deaf, paralyzed, and with major brain damage.

[vhatever]

Mengele

This is all you have posted. Complete trash. You addressed not a damn thing I said. Oh, yes, any time we can't cure something with certainty, let's just kill them all instead. You are a nazi if you think otherwise. Hurr durr.


[Infracted]

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This is all you have posted. Complete trash. You addressed not a damn thing I said. Oh, yes, any time we can't cure something with certainty, let's just kill them all instead. You are a nazi if you think otherwise. Hurr durr.

When I see people that want to experiment on human children regardless of the suffering that child will have to endure as a result...it makes me think of Mengele. You have yet to address that issue. You want to talk about euthanasia...but this is not euthanasia. The doctors will not be killing Charlie....they will just be turning off the machines that prolong his suffering.

I'm all for looking for a cure for this condition. The parents have raised a ton of money that they have said they will donate to research into it if they can't just throw it away uselessly on a procedure that can not and will not save their son. Charlie cannot survive off of life support and he never will. The damage is too extensive. i hope they follow through with donating that money though...maybe it can help some other kid in the future.

[vhatever]

When I see people that want to experiment on human children regardless of the suffering that child will have to endure as a result...it makes me think of Mengele. You have yet to address that issue. You want to talk about euthanasia...but this is not euthanasia. The doctors will not be killing Charlie....they will just be turning off the machines that prolong his suffering.

I'm all for looking for a cure for this condition. The parents have raised a ton of money that they have said they will donate to research into it if they can't just throw it away uselessly on a procedure that can not and will not save their son. Charlie cannot survive off of life support and he never will. The damage is too extensive. i hope they follow through with donating that money though...maybe it can help some other kid in the future.

This particular variation of the disorder generally kills the individuals in early infancy. The whole "experimenting with babies" is complete ad hominem nonsense. we don't have any options on that front, as explained. Your solution is to kill this kid and every similar one afterward, times infinity.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This particular variation of the disorder generally kills the individuals in early infancy. The whole "experimenting with babies" is complete ad hominim nonsense. we don't have any options on that front. Your solution is to kill this kid and every similar one afterward.

You are failing to grasp a few things:

1) This treatment cannot help Charlie. It can only prolong his agony.

2) No one is going to kill Charlie. He's already dying. The only issue is how long he has to continue to suffer before he does so. He's not going to be injected with anything that will end his life. He will simply be removed from the machines.

3) You think that because this treatment won't help Charlie I think the treatment itself is useless. That is not the case. The treatment can potentially help other children with the condition that are not as severe as Charlie. As I said before...the parents have raised a lot of money that they say they will donate to research into Charlies condition. I do hope they follow through on that.

[Flutterguy]

Mengele conducted experiments on humans with no regard for the amount of suffering he inflicted upon them. Kinda like what people seem to be advocating for little Charlie here.

Mengele's findings when they were discovered were shared with the wider medical community. They weren't thrown in a furnace. He was responsible for significant advances in knowledge regarding twins as well as getting definitive numbers for heat and cold tolerances for humans. Through his horrific acts, he provided a treasure trove of information no one turned down. It is pretty interesting when you think about it.

[vhatever]

You are failing to grasp a few things:

1) This treatment cannot help Charlie. It can only prolong his agony.

2) No one is going to kill Charlie. He's already dying. The only issue is how long he has to continue to suffer before he does so. He's not going to be injected with anything that will end his life. He will simply be removed from the machines.

3) You think that because this treatment won't help Charlie I think the treatment itself is useless. That is not the case. The treatment can potentially help other children with the condition that are not as severe as Charlie. As I said before...the parents have raised a lot of money that they say they will donate to research into Charlies condition. I do hope they follow through on that.

1. There is no evidence the kid is suffering any pain. he appears comatose, chemically induced or otherwise.

2. If trying to treat his condition is "just prolonging his suffering". Then, tit for tat, you are "killing him".

3.There aren't other people to test. What part of they all die in early infancy confused you? And why would we be able to treat them? You apparently won't accept it now, like you won't accept it then.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Mengele's findings when they were discovered were shared with the wider medical community. They weren't thrown in a furnace. He was responsible for significant advances in knowledge regarding twins as well as getting definitive numbers for heat and cold tolerances for humans. Through his horrific acts, he provided a treasure trove of information no one turned down. It is pretty interesting when you think about it.

And yet, despite all that, he's not remembered as a Great Healer...He's remembered as an absolute monster.

- - - Updated - - -

1. There is no evidence he the kid is suffering any pain. Statist lie.

2. If trying to treat his condition is "just proolonging his suffering". Then, tit for tat, you are killing him.

3.There aren't other people to test. What part of they all die in early infancy confused you? And why would be able to treat them? You apparently won't accept it, like you won't accept it here.

1) His Doctors believe he is suffering. That's more evidence than anything anyone else has gathered...its hard to know for certain because Charlie has no way of communicating with anyone.

2) Nothing can be done to reverse the damage that's already been done. Even if the condition were cured (which this treatment cannot do)...nothing would change for him.

3) Others can be treated because they haven't experienced catastrophic brain damage yet.

[vhatever]

There is no evidence he is in any pain. These are all statist positions not substantiated by facts and the real issue appears to be a power by play by the euro death panel folks. imagine if this kid came to the USA, survived --and even thrived. Wow. Euro death panel folks can't allow that. Too much at stake.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There is no evidence he is in any pain. These are all statist positions not substantiated by facts and the real issue appears to be a power by play by the euro death panel folks. imagine if this kid came to the USA, survived --and even thrived. Wow. Euro death panel folks can't allow that. Too much at stake.

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-as...ard-court-case

A few excerpts because I don't want to copy paste the entire document

Why is there no treatment available at GOSH?

There is no cure for Charlie’s condition which is terminal. GOSH explored various treatment options, including nucleoside therapy, the experimental treatment that one hospital in the US has agreed to offer now that the parents have the funds to cover the cost of such treatment. GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

How did GOSH come to this decision about his treatment?

GOSH’s clinicians had to balance whether this experimental treatment was in his best interests or not.

One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred.

The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit.

Even if the treatment does not work for Charlie, won’t it help other children in the future?

The courts base their decisions for treatment on what is in Charlie’s best interests, not what is in the best interests of medical science.

[Noradin]

I understand where you and most people here are coming from, but I have to question a doctor that says "it's better to just let him die."

Then I propose you go read the answers to the questions you would ask, if they are relevant then the answers are out there already, or do you think you are so special you are the first one to ever think to ask questions?

- - - Updated - - -

The number of times I have heard "the doctors said I wouldn't live past ____" is pretty huge. I don't think their decision was the right one at all.

That is the problem with predictions, but this here is not about predictions, it is about the present state the child is in.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, let me be a little more specific then. I support "assisted suicide." I'm against euthanasia in this form. And while this isn't murder it is still wrong to kill a child while at least one option is available.

But there is no option available.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said a few posts up, any doctor that says "let him die" isn't very good in my opinion. Hippocratic Oath and all that.

So you do not know the Oath you speak off?
Go look it up before you bring it up in an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

if the conclusive medical opinion is that he is brain dead for good and there is no chance of bettering his condition, and on top of that the law says they can pull the plug without consent, how come it hasnt been done? is it simply that since its in the news they backed off?

Because the law says they can appeal the decision up until the European Court of Human Rights rules on it.
It did rule on it.

[vhatever]

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-as...ard-court-case

A few excerpts because I don't want to copy paste the entire document

The statist claim is it's better to die than live with brain damage. The nazis you referenced would agree. who da thunk it?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The statist claim is it's better to die than live with brain damage. The nazis you referenced would agree. who da thunk it?

Since all you seem to be able to do is to keep repeating "statist" and ignoring the evidence...I think we're done here.

I'm not sure things can be any clearer than:

GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

[Astalnar]

So prolonging someone's "life" artificially whom can not refuse treatment, who can not experience joy or pleasure, blind, deaf, un able to move, unable to breathe on their own is ok by you?

Yes

thought experiment, someone is on fire, we do not have the ability to put them out or numb the pain in anyway but we can keep them alive indefinitely, is it moral to "prolong his life as long as possible"?

Yes. Prolong his life for as long as possible. You never know, maybe you actually do find a way to put out the fire. If he wants to end his life, then there is no point in stopping him. But if he is unable to decide for himself, it is wrong to presume death is better than life.

This better be sarcasm, or else.... Read up on the damn disease, Charlie is damaged beyond any cure or repair, it wouldnt be a life to live. You'd have to be one god-awful parent to wish for your child to remain alive in this state.

Who are you to decide what is a life to live? Children in Africa starve to death every day. Is that a reason enough to put a bullet through their brains? After all, that is certainly not the life worth living. Think on this. You are willing to condemn to death an innocent life, and the reason you would do it is supposedly kindness. How twisted and evil is that?

[Arunu]

There is no evidence he is in any pain. These are all statist positions not substantiated by facts and the real issue appears to be a power by play by the euro death panel folks. imagine if this kid came to the USA, survived --and even thrived. Wow. Euro death panel folks can't allow that. Too much at stake.

except for all the doctors and nurses that actually treated him saying he is, this is their assessment. as opposed to your "because i know better" than a full medical board.
yeah man, the wondrous USA doctors that said it would NOT cure him ? those ?

Euro death panels ??? oh you're one of those, carry on.

[Noradin]

Yes. Prolong his life for as long as possible. You never know, maybe you actually do find a way to put out the fire. If he wants to end his life, then there is no point in stopping him. But if he is unable to decide for himself, it is wrong to presume death is better than life.

When you cut your finger, do you take precautions to keep the blood alive for as long as possible?

[Astalnar]

When you cut your finger, do you take precautions to keep the blood alive for as long as possible?

What?

/10char

[Templar 331]

Then I propose you go read the answers to the questions you would ask, if they are relevant then the answers are out there already, or do you think you are so special you are the first one to ever think to ask questions?

Judging from this thread I'd say there are many who haven't asked these questions. Just blindly accepted the death of an infant.

But there is no option available.

There is the experimental treatment. Though it will not cure the child it is an option that is available.

So you do not know the Oath you speak off?
Go look it up before you bring it up in an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing.

Before you come in here with snide remarks I suggest you know what you are talking about.