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'.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Rest In Peace kid.
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.
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?
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.
''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.
This is dumb, how much money we gonna spend to save one kid? Let him die, spend the money to save numerous other 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 - - -
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.