Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
... LastLast
  1. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by Xandrigity View Post
    Parents have now withdrawn their fight to move baby to the US saying it's too late and won't help him.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/health...ion/index.html


    I'm glad the parents came to grips with reality and will allow him to die peacefully with some dignity.
    Really sad situation but at least the parents seem to be coming to terms with it. Although they'd previously made peace with the decision only to then make another appeal a few days later.

  2. #382
    Great, more care, money, and resources being thrown at a vegetable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    We only burn oil in this house! Oil that comes from decent, god-fearing sources like dinosaurs! Which didn't exist!

  3. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    Except its not your life. You can do whatever you want with your life and you are free to get whatever treatment you want for yourself.

    But you don't have that right over another person. Even if that person is your child.
    If you yourself cannot make choices and left no instructions (which you cant as a baby obv) then someone impartial will decide. And the parents are in no way impartial.
    The life choices of a minor child belong to the parents, because... y'know, humanity? Basic building block of the civil society, family? The only argument that anyone could ever make that the parents were unfit to make choices for that child is that they didn't agree with the government's choice for the child. It's not like baby Charlie Gard was himself advocating for no treatment, there were his parents (the morally entitled party) and the government seizing the choice in loco parentis to decide for him.

  4. #384
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    The life choices of a minor child belong to the parents, because... y'know, humanity? Basic building block of the civil society, family? The only argument that anyone could ever make that the parents were unfit to make choices for that child is that they didn't agree with the government's choice for the child. It's not like baby Charlie Gard was himself advocating for no treatment, there were his parents (the morally entitled party) and the government seizing the choice in loco parentis to decide for him.
    Different sets of rules. Europe acknowledges that children have rights independent of their parents and that a best interest outcome trumps parental decision, especially in the case of medical care. Same shit applies to vaccinations.

    But I fully expect you to follow this up banging on about how US law is the only one that matters because it's 'da bestest'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  5. #385
    Congress pro baby torture confirmed.

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Different sets of rules. Europe acknowledges that children have rights independent of their parents and that a best interest outcome trumps parental decision, especially in the case of medical care. Same shit applies to vaccinations.

    But I fully expect you to follow this up banging on about how US law is the only one that matters because it's 'da bestest'.
    In the US it's not all that uncommon for a hospital to prevail over parents wishes. For example in the NICU I worked at we frequently got court orders for blood products refused by parents for religious reasons.

  7. #387
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Xandrigity View Post
    In the US it's not all that uncommon for a hospital to prevail over parents wishes. For example in the NICU I worked in at we frequently got court orders for blood products refused by parents for religious reasons.
    True, but it's more clear cut in countries which have actually signed and enforce the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  8. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    True, but it's more clear cut in countries which have actually signed and enforce the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
    Very true in many ways the US treats children like property in the courts eyes. One of many ways humanity is twisted by the courts. I personally don't have a lot of knowledge on how specifically the U.K. laws differ from they do here in the US n matters such as this.

  9. #389
    I am Murloc! WskyDK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    20 Miles to Texas, 25 to Hell
    Posts
    5,802
    Rest In Peace kid.

  10. #390
    Elemental Lord Templar 331's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    8,226
    I see that the lawyer for the parents saying that if Charlie had received treatment in the beginning that this outcome wouldn't have happened. I keep looking for a statement from the U.S. doctor on this but can't seem to find it. If it's true then that's a heavy pill to swallow for the parents.

    I feel sorry for them since now they have to watch their child die knowing that something could have been done for him. It wouldn't have cured him but it would have been better than this.

  11. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Good news for those that believe our lives and choices are ultimately the property of the state before all else, I guess. Congrats, totalitarians.
    TIL: The state protecting someone from being tortured is now being "property of the state."

    I guess you also disagree with police protecting people?

  12. #392
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    The life choices of a minor child belong to the parents, because... y'know, humanity? Basic building block of the civil society, family? The only argument that anyone could ever make that the parents were unfit to make choices for that child is that they didn't agree with the government's choice for the child. It's not like baby Charlie Gard was himself advocating for no treatment, there were his parents (the morally entitled party) and the government seizing the choice in loco parentis to decide for him.
    The parents ability to make decisions for their children isn't a right but a responsibility, one they're not meeting. There's no moral entitlement to subject someone who depends on you utterly to unnecessary and, ultimately futile, suffering.

  13. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    TIL: The state protecting someone from being tortured is now being "property of the state."

    I guess you also disagree with police protecting people?
    Spoilers -- a lot of medical treatment of dire cases is not made of fluffy bunnies in terms of comfort level.

    I agree with the police protecting people; I disagree with vapid rubbish metaphors, though.

    Two parties disagreed on a course of medical care for a minor child -- his parents, and the government. The government wins, because the parents were unfit to decide; the reason the parents were unfit is because they disagreed with the government, basically.

    It was absolutely the right of the parents, AND the right of the child in whose parents his rights are entrusted as a function of being his parents, to seek any life-extending treatment that a willing provider would have given them. Some death-cult government bureaucrat who for all we know doesn't even have children didn't get it and decided they knew better. And so Charlie Gard shall die, in accordance to state policy.

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    It was absolutely the right of the parents, AND the right of the child in whose parents his rights are entrusted as a function of being his parents, to seek any life-extending treatment that a willing provider would have given them. Some death-cult government bureaucrat who for all we know doesn't even have children didn't get it and decided they knew better. And so Charlie Gard shall die, in accordance to state policy.
    Because keeping him alive is TORTURE.

    The government is protecting the child from being tortured because the parents are unable to let go.

    Parents do not own their children. Children are not property.

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Spoilers -- a lot of medical treatment of dire cases is not made of fluffy bunnies in terms of comfort level.

    I agree with the police protecting people; I disagree with vapid rubbish metaphors, though.

    Two parties disagreed on a course of medical care for a minor child -- his parents, and the government. The government wins, because the parents were unfit to decide; the reason the parents were unfit is because they disagreed with the government, basically.

    It was absolutely the right of the parents, AND the right of the child in whose parents his rights are entrusted as a function of being his parents, to seek any life-extending treatment that a willing provider would have given them. Some death-cult government bureaucrat who for all we know doesn't even have children didn't get it and decided they knew better. And so Charlie Gard shall die, in accordance to state policy.
    You've got it a bit wrong here. The two parties were the parents and the medical professionals who were overseeing the care of the child. The government (in the form of the courts) acted as a mediator and decided that the medical professionals would have a better idea about the medical issues. They do a similar thing when members of certain religious groups refuse to allow treatment for their children based on their beliefs - do you think those children should be allowed to die to maintain the parent's absolute rights over their children?

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    It was absolutely the right of the parents, AND the right of the child in whose parents his rights are entrusted as a function of being his parents, to seek any life-extending treatment that a willing provider would have given them. Some death-cult government bureaucrat who for all we know doesn't even have children didn't get it and decided they knew better. And so Charlie Gard shall die, in accordance to state policy.
    The people who made that decision are the best doctors on the planet, that spent months treating the child and brought in specialists from all over the world to assist.

    The court merely ruled on their evidence, over the evidence of a dodgy-as-fuck doctor from america who could provide no evidence whatsoever that his treatment would work.
    Last edited by Netherspark; 2017-07-24 at 11:24 PM.

  17. #397
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Netherspark View Post
    The people who made that decision are the best doctors on the planet, that spent months treating the child and brought in specialists from all over the world to assist.

    The court ruled on their evidence.
    No use talking to someone who assumes that this is about a death cult.

  18. #398
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Spoilers -- a lot of medical treatment of dire cases is not made of fluffy bunnies in terms of comfort level.

    I agree with the police protecting people; I disagree with vapid rubbish metaphors, though.

    Two parties disagreed on a course of medical care for a minor child -- his parents, and the government. The government wins, because the parents were unfit to decide; the reason the parents were unfit is because they disagreed with the government, basically.

    It was absolutely the right of the parents, AND the right of the child in whose parents his rights are entrusted as a function of being his parents, to seek any life-extending treatment that a willing provider would have given them. Some death-cult government bureaucrat who for all we know doesn't even have children didn't get it and decided they knew better. And so Charlie Gard shall die, in accordance to state policy.
    ''The government'' didn't decide shit. Doctors at one of the most renowned children's hospital in the world said that all treatments had been exhausted and that the kid was basically dead. One doctor from the US countered their claims, saying he had some sort of untested experimental treatment that would improve his situation somehow. The Courts did not believe said doctor and allowed the hospital to cease futile life-prolonging treatments since they were way past the point of being useless. The fact that the child now has weeks to live, at best, supports the version of GOSH too. Extremely severe muscle atrophy is not something you cure by injecting the kid with steroids, and if I read this right it's only part of his problems unfortunately.

    I'm sorry that the actual story doesn't fit your finely constructed narrative, but reality isn't as black and white as you might believe it is. But hey, don't let that stop you from pushing your agenda down our throats.

  19. #399
    This is dumb, how much money we gonna spend to save one kid? Let him die, spend the money to save numerous other children.

  20. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    You've got it a bit wrong here. The two parties were the parents and the medical professionals who were overseeing the care of the child. The government (in the form of the courts) acted as a mediator and decided that the medical professionals would have a better idea about the medical issues. They do a similar thing when members of certain religious groups refuse to allow treatment for their children based on their beliefs - do you think those children should be allowed to die to maintain the parent's absolute rights over their children?
    Actually, no, I do not, not if there is a willing and reputable medical professional on the side of treatment (which is the case with the trial therapies for the boy here). Because the public policy presumption on behalf of any minor child should be in favor of wanting to live longer. It's a lynch pin of a functioning society. It's the underlying assumption of everything from criminal law and tort to life and health insurance to good samaritan protections to implied consent doctrine, etc. The benefit of first, and probably every doubt, should be in whomever would prefer the patient have the best chance to live longer. If two parties are disagreeing only on how they have the best chance to live longer, I'd say it goes to the parents.

    And, eh, y'know what, once you've nationalized a healthcare system, the caregivers are state actors, so it's a hollow distinction. In that kind of model it's ultimately impossible in edge cases to be sure that the choices are medical and not financial.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sibut View Post
    This is dumb, how much money we gonna spend to save one kid? Let him die, spend the money to save numerous other children.
    There's no "we", seeing as a small army of voluntary contributors had that handled.

    I always find it peculiar how many people assume it's "better" for healthcare to be funded by involuntary contribution over voluntary contribution. Like, people talk down to people who rely on a gofundme for major medical, like somehow it's more just if instead of taking money from those willing to give it specifically to them out of compassion, that it be paid with money simply taken from others with no input.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •